Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 5) BILL [Lords]

Bill (as amended in Committee) considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till tomorrow.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon on order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL

MIDLAND METRO BILL

MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [24th July] as relates to the Aire and Calder Navigation Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, the Cattewater Reclamation Bill, the London Docklands Railway Bill, the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill, the London Underground Bill, the Midland Metro Bill and the Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill be now considered;

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Aire and Calder Navigation Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, the Cattewater Reclamation Bill, the London Docklands Railway Bill, the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill, the London Underground Bill, the Midland Metro Bill and the Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bills Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bills Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Order of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

"Options for Change"

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the ratio of civil servants to active service personnel in 1966, 1976, 1986 and projected after "Options for Change" has been implemented.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The ratio of United Kingdom-based civil servants to active service personnel on 1 April each year was as follows: in 1966, there were 65 civilians for every 100 service personnel; by 1976 it had risen to 72; in 1986 it had fallen


to 53 civilians for every 100 service personnel; and the projected ratio after options in 1996 is down to 48 civilians.

Mr. Field: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the concerns of the older generation in this country, who saw the events of the 1930s unfold and develop into the second world war. Can he assure the House that the pen pushers and paper shufflers have not saved their jobs at the expense of the teeth arms? Does he agree that it is hypocritical for the Liberal Democrats to criticise our defence policy when their policy is for a 50 per cent. cut and they would never have built Trident submarines to act as the nation's nuclear deterrent?

Mr. King: I give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he sought. There will be a significant reduction, as there has been in the last 10 years; there has been a 28 per cent. real reduction in civil servants and civilians working in the Ministry of Defence as against a 3 per cent. reduction in the armed services. There will be a further 20,000 reduction, to which I have referred, in the civilian sphere.
The lesson that we have learnt from the 1930s is that if we face conflict, it is our duty to ensure that our forces are fully equipped and that we do not repeat what happened in 1939, when we were so ill equipped. That is very much at the heart of our new proposals.
As for the policy of the Liberal Democrats which I understand they are in the process of changing yet again —I believe that they are to have a review of their last review—they would make a 50 per cent. reduction across the board.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Would the Secretary of State care to say what percentage reduction will occur, if the Conservatives are still in power, in the year 2000, bearing in mind the existing defence budget?

Mr. King: We are making a reduction of 21 per cent. in numbers across the board and I have said that, looking to the next three years, we envisage a reduction of about 6 per cent. in real terms. I do not think I was misrepresenting the hon. and learned Gentleman, since I understand that he has owned up to recommending the policy of a 50 per cent. cut by the year 2000. I have no objection to people holding views genuinely, but they must come forward and state them honestly to the House—or are we stuck with a review of a review of a review?

Mr. Viggers: First, can my right hon. Friend confirm that those who leave the Ministry of Defence, be they civilians or service men, will be given retirement terms that fully reflect the loyalty of their service? Secondly, can he confirm that it will be a cardinal point of his defence review that the armed forces will, in the longer term, continue to provide a good career structure?

Mr. King: Very much so. We must make some painful decisions now on the latter point—which will involve some redundancies—precisely to ensure that, in the smaller structure, the promotion opportunities continue as they are at present. We must make certain that there is a proper structure at the different ranks and ages. As for my hon. Friend's first point, we are most anxious to ensure that we deal fairly with people who may have given long service, both in the armed forces and in the civilian sections of the

Ministry of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will have more to say about that later today.

Defence Employment

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on employment of reductions in defence expenditure.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Employment considerations are among the many factors that we take into account.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the British public will find it appalling that, in one and a half hours of speeches made yesterday by the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State, not a word was said about the employment implications and the implications for manufacturing industry of the current defence review? Have the Government a corporate approach to these matters? What is being done to help manufacturing industries to diversify and to avoid the huge losses in skills and livelihoods that now loom large?

Mr. Clark: I note that the hon. Gentleman has recycled a rather tired cliché of Labour party—it can hardly be called policy; Labour's industrial policy seems to be as confused as its military policy. It was, in fact, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—although that was thanks more to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter)—that the largest order for military equipment placed in the past two years was given to Vickers, for the Challenger 2 tank.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Royal Ordnance, Nottingham, is the only full gun-making facility in the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the skills in that unique facility and the product that is made there are essential to the long-term security of our defence procurement? Will he give me some assurance that the Government will recognise those skills and that jobs in that unique unit will be protected?

Mr. Clark: I certainly share my hon. Friend's high estimation of the skills in the Royal Ordnance factory. They are deeply rooted in tradition, as well as being thoroughly up to date in current technology. Two of the most recent products not only have considerable appeal for our own forces, but have considerable export potential: I refer, of course, to the improved high-penetration 105 mm gun and to the air-portable howitzer.

Mr. Battle: Given the momentous changes in the Soviet Union over the summer—in particular, the dismantling of the KGB—are there any plans for a reduction in the number of people employed in the Ministry of Defence security services?

Mr. Clark: We are looking at every aspect of civilian employment in the Ministry of Defence, but, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, it is never our practice to discuss numbers, costs and activities in the security field.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to discuss future research and development arrangements with the British defence industry has been widely welcomed? Does he agree that, if


we are to have a better-equipped Army, it is essential that we keep alive our research and development in British industry, so that that vital equipment can be provided?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I attach the highest importance to that and I intend—if the House will allow me—to enlarge on the subject when I open this afternoon's debate.

Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Office has set up a defence industries initiative to help communities and individuals who have been affected by reductions in the demand for defence products? Has any additional money been made available for that initiative, have any Government Departments—even his own—been involved in it and does he wish to extend it to the rest of the United Kingdom in accordance with Labour party policy?

Mr. Clark: This is a matter for the Scottish Office to answer. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the great defect in all Labour's pontifications on the subject. All these fine words are of absolutely no value unless they are quantified in terms of financial assistance. If they are to be so quantified, on whose budget does this financial assistance fall and how much is it to be? As I say, that is a matter for the Scottish Office, but my understanding is that this is purely advisory.

Iraq

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of British forces in ensuring that Iraq's military nuclear capacity is removed.

Mr. Tom King: The Ministry of Defence is providing military and civilian experts and technical equipment to help the UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency to eliminate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction under Security Council resolution 687.

Mr. Butler: If Saddam Hussein is still building up his nuclear capacity, as President Bush contends, given what we now know about his nuclear capability does not it prove that to continue with the policy of sanctions alone would have been foolish indeed?

Mr. King: There is significant evidence to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein has under-declared, misrepresented and concealed Iraq's ability in all areas—nuclear, chemical and biological. Particularly in the case of nuclear, we are now satisfied that he could have had a working explosive device by 1993. The scale of these developments and the determination of the Iraqis to seek to pursue them are now being apprehended by the positive approach that we have taken—the initiatives taken in the liberation of Kuwait and now in the pursuit of identifying and destroying these weapons of mass destruction. It is abundantly clear that the policy advice that we had from the Opposition—to carry on with sanctions for longer and longer—would have been totally catastrophic.

Mr. Flynn: If the United Nations Commission reports that British firms were involved in the build-up of Iraqi nuclear weapons, will the Secretary of State promise today that such information will be made public?

Mr. King: There is an investigation into the full range. I referred the House to the fact that, as part of our determination, more than 2,000 documents have been recovered. The initiative of this Government, working with the United Nations, is now bringing that information to light. I have already said that the documents have revealed the extent to which the Iraqis went to disguise the true purpose of their purchases. The record that I was able to read out was evidence enough of the Government's determination to play their part.

Mr. Rogers: Rubbish!

Mr. King: Rubbish? The Government played a major part in seeing that these arms and these programmes were brought to light. We shall pursue that policy until they are destroyed.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British involvement extends to eliminating Iraq's chemical and biological capability as well as its nuclear capability? That is essential. Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that the United Nations can rely upon the full commitment of every resource that we have to this end as soon as possible?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can certainly give him that assurance. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the very substantial scale of Iraq's chemical capability. It is four times the initial declaration that it made. As for the biological capability, I informed the House yesterday that we have now established that Saddam Hussein has the ability to produce a very substantial amount of chemical warfare agents. We shall ensure that they are fully destroyed.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State accept that the whole House is glad that the United Nations initiative has been so successful and that the evidence is coming forward? Will he ensure that that information is made public when it is applicable to Britain? If appropriate, will he guarantee that, in conjunction with his ministerial colleagues elsewhere, the companies guilty of supplying the Iraqis with devices—either unwittingly or wittingly, because ignorance of the law is no excuse—will be brought to account, so we can show the rest of the world that we wish to have no dealings in this kind of illegal nuclear trade?

Mr. King: We take this matter very seriously. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the actions of, for instance, customs and excise and the activities at London airport on another occasion, he will know the steps to which we go to apprehend weapons that might have been illegally exported. If anybody is guilty of breaking any law, of course they will be brought to justice.

Ulster Defence Regiment

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the implications of the "Options for Change" review on the number and deployment of Ulster Defence Regiment battalions.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): As part of his statement on the restructuring of the Army on 23 July my right hon. Friend announced that the Ulster Defence Regiment is to be integrated more fully


into the Army by merging with the Royal Irish Rangers to create a new regiment. This new regiment will comprise one battalion for worldwide service and up to seven battalions for service in Northern Ireland. It is intended that members of the UDR will transfer to the home service battalions and will undertake the range of duties currently discharged by the UDR.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for repeating that statement. As he knows, we are prepared to give the changes a fair wind, subject to finding a more suitable name for the new regiment. My question is directed towards the implications of the "Options for Change" review, particularly in light of the Secretary of State's reaffirmation yesterday that there will be a 24-month interval between unaccompanied tours. Is not it a simple fact that one cannot rotate up to 20 battalions a year through Northern Ireland and at the same time reduce to a total of 38 battalions? Does not that imply either a serious restructuring of the nature of regular Army deployment in Northern Ireland or some significant changes in the way in which the UDR will operate?

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the proposals a fair wind. We are grateful for the support from within the Province. The name of the regiment was discussed at some length and several other ideas were suggested. This was the agreed name reached by the colonels of the regiment and I think that we must leave that judgment with them. It is important to take into account the bipartisan nature of the new regiment, which will recruit from the Catholic as well as the Protestant community. That will be one of its strengths in the future.
The 24-month roulement was one of the considerations in the forefront of our minds when we decided on the number of infantry battalions. We are satisfied that we shall be able to do better than at present, which is less than 24 months. That was one of the main considerations that we took into account. In addition, the Royal Marines will be part of the roulement more regularly than at present.

Mr. Kilfedder: May I appeal to the Minister to think again about the name of the new regiment and to retain the distinguished name of the Ulster Defence Regiment in view of the dedication and expertise of the men and women who have faced terrorism for so many years and because of the supreme sacrifice made by many members of that distinguished regiment?

Mr. Hamilton: It was precisely because we owe so much to the Ulster Defence Regiment that we felt that it was important to integrate it more fully with the regular British Army, as we are doing in the proposals. I am afraid that serious thought has been given to the name and it is unlikely that we shall be changing it.

Amphibious Craft

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's amphibious capability.

Mr. Alan Clark: The United Kingdom will be retaining an amphibious capability. We intend to replace and modernise the specialist shipping which supports our amphibious forces.

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Iraq had to deploy a number of forces on the Kuwaiti coast to deal with the potential amphibious landing? Is not it essential that, when we are reducing the size of our standing Army in Germany, we should retain a strong amphibious capability and that early plans should be produced for the replacement of HMS Fearless and Intrepid?

Mr. Clark: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I value his support and I hope that we shall be referring to this later at greater length. My hon. Friend is right that an amphibious capability is inseparable from our approach which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, is smaller but better. The better means being more flexible, more responsive, harder hitting and faster reacting and an amphibious capability is an essential component of that.

Sir Patrick Duffy: It is one thing to acknowledge, as the Minister does, the need for flexibility and mobility and the implications that were made clear in yesterday's debate about force projection and even out-of-area, but we need the means of tranferring our armed forces into those areas. When will the Government's undertakings, which have been freely and helpfully given, be translated into budgetary commitments?

Mr. Clark: I shall have more to say about that later this afternoon, but my respect for the hon. Gentleman is such that I shall allow him to draw from me the assurance that I expect to award the project definition contract next month.

Mr. Trotter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Swan Hunter has spent considerable time and skill on considering what might be done to enhance our amphibious capability? Will he confirm that a helicopter-carrying aviation support ship could figure in those plans?

Mr. Clark: Yes, I gladly confirm that. I very much appreciate the skilful and inventive qualities of all our shipyards and the amount of time that they devote to this subject, which is extending and projecting our amphibious power.

Mr. Boyes: I welcome the Minister's statement that there will be a replacement for Intrepid and Fearless. Labour welcomes that and we hope that it can be kept to time and that there is not the same slippage as there has been with the type 23 frigates. Given yesterday's announcement that Endurance is being replaced by a boat that will be leased from Norway, will he give a categorical assurance that, first, the replacement will be a new-build boat rather than one leased from another country and, secondly, that it will be built in the United Kingdom and that tenders will not be invited from shipyards abroad?

Mr. Clark: I can certainly give the latter assurance. I shall deal with this later, but I cannot resist a dig at the hon. Gentleman, who referred last night to the need for stability in our warship ordering. I do not know whether he was articulating Labour party policy, but the stability that he envisages would hang pretty heavily over the dole queues in our shipbuilding cities.

Nuclear Warheads (Transport)

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safe transport of nuclear warheads in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Safety is a paramount consideration in the transport of nuclear weapons. It is ensured by rigorous training and operational procedures and by the robustness of the weapons, their containers and the road transport vehicles. We have an excellent safety record and we are determined to maintain it.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recall that I have been worried about this matter ever since nuclear weapons were taken through the centre of the city of Leicester in the rush hour? Will he please consider the setting up of an independent oversight panel such as the Drell panel in the House of Representatives in the USA and not simply say that it cannot happen here and wait for something dreadful to occur? We need independent oversight of the transport of nuclear weapons by road.

Mr. Hamilton: It is very alarmist to say that we are waiting for an accident to occur; I do not think that that helps anybody. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will make a statement on nuclear safety later today.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, where nuclear deterrent submarines are based, we recognise the need to move warheads and that he has the support of Conservative Members on that? I hope that when he considers other proposed changes he will recognise that that support has never been short in coming.

Mr. Hamilton: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. That reminds one of the massive investment that we are making in nuclear facilities in Scotland, for which we rarely get any thanks from the Opposition.

Mr. Canavan: How can the Minister justify the transportation of nuclear materials from Iraq to Dounreay? Has Scotland been reduced to a dumping ground for a nuclear capability that western nations, including Britain, were responsible for creating?

Mr. Hamilton: There is no question of Scotland's being treated as a dumping ground. As I have already said, Scotland has been treated to the enormous investment project of our nuclear bases and it is about time that we were given credit for the amount of employment and investment that has taken place in Scotland as a result of placing our nuclear facilities there.

Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the improved international situation must make the transportation of these dangerous nuclear weapons far less likely in future?

Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, it is right to the extent that we shall not usually deploy nuclear weapons at sea. There will be correspondingly less transportation of nuclear weapons to take that into account.

NATO Nuclear Deterrence

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet NATO Ministers to discuss the strategy of nuclear deterrence.

Mr. Tom King: I will meet my NATO colleagues this week at the nuclear planning group meeting in Sicily, where we will discuss a range of current nuclear issues.

Mr. McAllion: As the Government have already welcomed the unilateral cuts in nuclear weapons announced individually by Presidents Bush and Gorbachev, why are they still refusing to make any real cuts in Britain's nuclear weapons? Are the Government still obsessed with the cold war mentality beyond the end of the cold war? If they believe that nuclear weapons are essential to the defence of this country, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House against which enemies our weapons of mass destruction are targeted?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully, because I have already announced our intention to scrap our theatre nuclear weapons—the short-range weapons, the Lance missiles. Earlier, I announced a reduction in the number of dual-capable aircraft. There will be a significant reduction. When the hon. Gentleman has the courtesy to read the NATO communiqué, which will emerge from the meeting tomorrow and the day after, he will see significant changes. The only change that he will not see is that, unlike him, we are not prepared to abandon our nuclear deterrent while other people have nuclear weapons pointed at us. I know that the hon. Gentleman's view is sincerely held. We believe that that view is held by a majority of Opposition Members who have not changed their response at all.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments in the former Soviet Union, although welcome in many respects, create an even more complex nuclear situation than before? Does he agree that the danger of these weapons proliferating and falling under the control of authorities that have not really understood the concept of the nuclear deterrent in the past means that NATO now needs a new strategy of nuclear deterrence that includes the possibility of intervention in order to prevent one minor power using a nuclear weapon against another?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend makes a perceptive comment. In my speech yesterday I said that the major massive threat that we faced from the totality of the Warsaw pact—the Soviet Union and its satellites—may have gone, but the quality of the threat and the dangers that exist are real. That is particularly so in terms of the custody possession of nuclear weapons and the number of countries that have developed a missile capability and the number that undoubtedly will have a nuclear capability by the year 2000. My hon. Friend draws attention to the great foolishness of those Opposition Members who want to get rid of our nuclear weapons at a time when a minimum deterrent is an essential safeguard for our country.

Mr. Wigley: Given the right hon. Gentleman's statement a moment ago, will he confirm that the Government now accept that the unilateral abandonment of certain nuclear weapons is part of Government policy and that, if circumstances permit, they will pursue that line until more nuclear weapons have been removed?

Mr. King: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can possibly sustain the idea of unilateralism. President Bush made a proposal to the Soviet Union and President Gorbachev responded smartly. There is the prospect of substantial multilateral reductions—with NATO speaking from a position of strength—which will result in a much more significant reduction in nuclear weapons in the world than would ever have been achieved by the efforts of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Mr. Robert Banks: Is not there an important lesson to be learnt from the discovery of Iraq's potential nuclear capability in ensuring that we maintain our Trident nuclear deterrent to meet the unexpected?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—that is precisely the point. As I said yesterday, maintaining both the Trident nuclear deterrent, or strategic nuclear deterrent, and a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent, or dual-capable aircraft, is an important element. We want a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons in the world, but we must ensure that, while other people have nuclear weapons, we maintain the basic minimum capability to defend ourselves. That is the prudent position. That is the position that the British people want. It is not the position in which the majority of Opposition Members believe.

Mr. O'Neill: Would the Secretary of State care to tell us where he proposes to procure the sub-strategic element to which he has just referred, given that the United States Government have just cancelled their contract with Boeing for SRAM-T short-range attack missiles? Will he follow the American example and set this provocative and unnecessary capability aside for the time being?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman can make that comment only if he totally ignores the wide range of alternative options that the United States has in terms of sub-strategic weapons. We have a number of alternative approaches to the issue of a sub-strategic weapon and we shall continue with our analysis of those.

Turkey

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in Turkey as part of the instant response force.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: United Kingdom forces have played and continue to play a major part in helping to ensure the safety of Iraqi citizens in northern Iraq. On 30 August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the deployment of eight Jaguar aircraft to south-east Turkey to reinforce the air element of the deterrent force. These aircraft continue to provide an important contribution. The United States air element was also strengthened at the end of September and at the same time, as part of this overall restructuring process, the coalition ground forces were withdrawn. The continuing presence of British and coalition forces demonstrates our determination that renewed repression will not be tolerated.

Mr. Arnold: Is not the success of Operation Safe Haven and the saving of tens of thousands of civilian Kurdish lives a tribute to the armed forces of this country and especially to the Royal Marines?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. I certainly support that point and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it. Great admiration was shown for the way in which the Marines conducted themselves in northern Iraq and it is a great tribute to the training that they had in Northern Ireland which gave them a unique capability there.

Mr. Corbyn: Can the Minister tell us what knowledge the British armed services in Turkey have of the activities of the Turkish air force in bombing Kurdish villages in Iraq? Is he aware that I visited the village of Xerezok in August? It was recently bombed by the Turkish air force and many innocent civilians were killed as a result. Will he put all the pressure that he can on the Turkish Government to cease their bombardment of innocent Kurdish people living in northern Iraq who have suffered enough in the past years and who are seeking their own peace and self-determination?

Mr. Hamilton: The point must be made that that was action against the Kurdish Workers' Party—the PKK—a Kurdish terrorist organisation which has no support from other Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. Exactly what tactics the Turks are deploying must be a matter for them. However, the fact is that they are reacting against a terrorist organisation. Clearly, we condemn any bombing of civilians and children.

Foulness Island

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future plans there are for the proof and experimental establishment ranges at Foulness island.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): A review to assess the future of the proof and experimental establishments is in hand. It is too early to comment on the outcome of this review. We expect to make a decision in the first part of next year.

Dr. Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware of the long history of service of the Foulness Rangers in testing artillery equipment? Will he accept, therefore, that their considerable experience should be borne in mind, especially at this time when defence needs are being reviewed?

Mr. Carlisle: I certainly recognise the valuable work undertaken at Foulness. I also pay tribute to the support that my hon. Friend has always given to the establishment. However, there is overcapacity at our seven proof and experimental establishments. We have, therefore, to address that and to have a review. We hope to resolve the uncertainty as soon as possible.

Polaris

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the refitting programme for Polaris submarines.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I have received a small number of representations from hon. Members on the refitting, repair and maintenance of Polaris submarines.

Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister explain why he and his ministerial colleagues, and senior civil servants, continu-ally refuse to answer questions on Polaris in the House and


in the Select Committee on Defence but are happy to allow Ministry of Defence officials to brief journalists and to appear on the "This Week" programme to comment on the Polaris submarine? Is not it time that we had open government, and that we were told clearly whether HMS Revenge will have a third refit and why Polaris submarines are not now considered safe enough to visit foreign ports, but are considered safe enough to operate in Scottish ports?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the practice of this Government—or of previous Governments—to comment on the material state of nuclear submarines in Commission or refit, but I can assure the House that no nuclear submarine would put to sea without the approval and advice of the independent nuclear-powered warships safety committee. It is right to remind the House that, under Labour, there would be no SSNs: in his speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) implied that Labour would build no more nuclear-powered submarines.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in sniping at the Polaris refit, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) underlines his opposition to the nuclear deterrent—unfortunately shared by two thirds of the Labour party?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We all know that the official policy of the Labour party is not to have an independent nuclear deterrent. That is the view of the majority of Labour Members and that is the view which the country will know when the time comes to make the decision.

Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister aware of the view of Greenpeace that there is a high exposure risk to workers on those Polaris submarines because of faulty reactors? Do the Government care anything for those workers' interests, or are they to be the nuclear test veterans of the next decade?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman knows that we care deeply for the well-being of our workers. He should understand that we have just reviewed the allowed limits, which have been reduced to not more than 100 mSv over five years. If anyone receives exposure to approaching 15 mSv in any one year—and there are very few who do—we review his case very carefully.

"Options for Change"

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on his plans for the restructuring of the British Army.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his "Options for Change" programme.

Mr. Tom King: I have received numerous representations on the plans set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and in the White Paper "Britain's Army for the 90s".

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reduction in manpower in our armed forces places even greater importance on the quality of training and

equipment to allow us to maintain a truly effective fighting force? Does he also agree that the existence of fewer forces in the infantry places greater importance—not less— on the future of the Territorial Army? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the TA will be maintained?

Mr. King: I can certainly give the assurance that we shall seek to maintain a very effective Territorial Army. Consultation is taking place at present and I hope that we shall have more news well before the end of the year.
My hon. Friend's point about training and equipment is absolutely correct. Of course training and equipment are expensive and substantial funds are involved. We have looked carefully at the balance between numbers and equipment and that has been a very important consideration. We know that by our plans Britain's defence can be secured and that Labour's proposals for further cuts in defence expenditure, set out in the amendment that we shall be debating, will put the defence of our country at risk.

Mr. David Nicholson: Given the importance of supporting a flexible and mobile response, is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Somerset, there is a welcome for his recent order of the anti-submarine helicopter from Westland and an expectation that he will ensure that the Royal Marines and the Light Infantry are properly supported and equipped?

Mr. King: Having some distant knowledge of that county myself, I can certainly echo my hon. Friend's remarks. Moreover, my hon. Friend knows that no fewer than 350 contractors across the country will be involved in the order for the Westland helicopter. That underlines my point about our being prepared to invest in the defence of our country. We are prepared to do that. The Opposition call for further cuts, yet pretend to support every equipment purchase. That is blind hypocrisy on their part because they know that they could not afford it.

Mr. Turner: In view of the massive petition that was presented to Parliament yesterday on behalf of the Staffords, and in view of the powerful case that they have advanced, will the Secretary of State please reconsider his unpopular decision? I ask that on behalf of all the people of Staffordshire and the west midlands—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Cheshire"]—Yes, and Cheshire.

Mr. King: I obviously regret that the famous traditions of any regiment are affected by the changes, but they are inevitable in the proposals that we have announced. The hon. Gentleman had better have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, because barely two weeks ago he announced that he thought that the Government's plans to reduce British troop levels in Germany did not go far enough and that Labour would consider a much smaller presence. The hon. Gentleman may believe that he would have a better chance under a Labour Government, but it is clear that it is Labour's policy that there should be fewer regiments.

Dr. Reid: Can the Secretary of State tell us what proportion of regular troops he envisages will constitute our contribution to the rapid reaction force? Can he confirm reports that the British contribution to the rapid reaction force may be as low as 60 per cent. of regulars? If


it is as low as that, was that explained to our allies in NATO when we bid for the leadership of the rapid reaction force?

Mr. King: As we said yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will give those figures when he replies to the debate tonight. However, I noticed that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) did not deny newspaper reports that his colleague, the hon. Member for Clackmannan, has called for bigger reductions in the British Army. The House can see for itself the hypocrisy of pretending to criticise our plans when Labour intends to go further.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of The House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing will prevent the dismantling of Saddam Hussein's capability to manufacture nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend made a particular personal contribution in the Gulf war and I therefore understand why he has made that point. I am happy to give him that assurance. He will agree that this country has played a major part in securing resolution 687 which stated that we would seek, identify and destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. As a result of the United Kingdom's initiative and of the courage of members of the teams including scientists from several countries under United Nations auspices, it is becoming clear just how extensive and advanced was Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. [Interruption.] I do not understand why Opposition Members are reacting in that way, because they must know that this is one of the most crucial international issues at the moment. The Iraqi Government are still trying to cling to it and are still cheating and lying. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) that they will not be permitted to succeed. One way or another, their nuclear capability must go, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter.

Mr. Kinnock: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government propose to do to stop the process of privatisation of the national health service?

Mr. MacGregor: The first thing is to make it clear— time and again—as I believe the right hon. Gentleman now knows, that there is no question of privatisation. [Interruption.] That is why the right hon. Gentleman is now retreating to his charge of creeping privatisation. Let me tell him what that amounts to. It amounts to issues like contracting out of services and competitive tendering. It

amounts also to other issues to ensure better reforms of the health service. Even allowing for all the savings that Labour claims that it would make, the net loss to patient care as a result of Labour's proposals for abolishing competitive tendering and charges and introducing a statutory minimum wage—proposals that would cost nearly £400 million a year—is equivalent to 400,000 fewer acute in-patient treatments or 16,000 fewer heart transplants, 12,000 fewer liver transplants or 40,000 fewer kidney transplants. That is the point the Leader of the Opposition has refused to answer. The policies that we are pursuing are not creeping privatisation, they are achieving proper reforms to ensure that the resources are better directed to patient care.

Mr. Kinnock: rose——

Hon. Members: Tell the truth.

Mr. Kinnock: rose——

Mr. Dickens: Lies—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Withdraw that remark.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Kinnock: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows —[Interruption.]

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been a custom—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No point of order arises. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the comment.

Mr. Dickens: In accordance with your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "lies". We do not lie in the House of Commons.

Mr. Kinnock: There is another withdrawal in order. It is the withdrawal of opt-outs and privatisation, for which the Government have no mandate.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the closure of geriatric wards in NHS hospitals means that old and very sick people are forced into private medical homes? Is not he aware that people now have to pay the commercial rate for eye tests? Is not he aware that people are having to use their life savings for urgent operations? The people call that privatisation—so do we.

Mr. MacGregor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is engaging in the smears and fears again? There is no question of national health trust hospitals being outside the national health service. On eye test charges, he will know that about 40 per cent. of the population do not have to pay for those eye charges. Is he really saying that he would abolish them and thus deprive patients with serious hospital needs from getting the extra resources that he would take away? Is that what he is saying? On elderly people in homes, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the number of elderly people supported by public funds in residential care has more than doubled since 1979.

Mr. Kinnock: The more the Government protest, the less the Government are believed. Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, when people have to pay for services at the point of use that were free at the point of use, that is privatisation in anyone's language?

Mr. MacGregor: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Labour Government supported the idea


of some charges in the health service? He simply has to answer the question that we have increased resources of more than 50 per cent. in real terms in the health service. He is putting forward the only proposals that seem to be different. The only proposals that he can possibly say are creeping privatisation, are actually designed to improve the amount of money that goes direct to patient care. He has failed to answer the question why he would pursue that policy and thus deprive patients of operations which are currently taking place.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: When the Leader of the Opposition refers to opt-out hospitals, is it not the case——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please deal with Government policy.

Mr. Hargreaves: Will my right hon. Friend agree that in response to his recent remarks, the opting out of NHS hospitals is simply the return to their status before 1974, as in the case of teaching hospitals which were then hospital trusts? Is it not the case that a large number of those hospitals wish to have the management of their own affairs in that state to which they were accustomed before 1974?

Mr. MacGregor: I would go further than my hon. Friend. The reforms are ensuring better use of resources in the health service directly on patient care. The reason why we are getting wholly unfounded smears and fears is that the Labour party has nothing to say about improving the management of the national health service.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: On the subject of facts and figures, does the Leader of the House recall that on 8 November last year the Prime Minister forecast that there would be a surplus on the Budget account of about £3 billion? He was wrong. The Chancellor of I he Exchequer, in the budget for this year forecast a deficit on the Budget account of £8,000 million. He was wrong again, because the forecast for this year looks like being at least £18 billion. The truth is that the Government cannot get their economic sums right, and that is why they cannot be believed on the national health service or anything else. The Tory Government would not recognise the truth if it were sprayed on their eyeballs.

Mr. MacGregor: This Government have succeeded in achieving a rate of economic growth throughout the 1980s that has been a good deal faster than in previous decades. That is why we have been able to increase spending on the national health service and in many other areas. It comes very rich from the hon. Gentleman's party to accuse us about issues relating to public expenditure when we know that the Labour party has already committed itself to an increased expenditure bill of £35,000 million.

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Birmingham is blessed with a superb education system based on choice? We have six grammar schools, a city technology college on our border, a growing number of grant-maintained schools and many church schools. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will maintain that element of choice in our education system, in contrast to the Labour party which is intent on nationalising all that choice?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited that city technology college and some of the grant-maintained schools. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the reforms that we are undertaking and the extra choice that we are giving are raising educational standards and increasing parental choice. It is very noticeable that grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges are increasingly popular with parents because demand for places at them is rising substantially. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Labour party would abolish that choice.

Mr. Ashdown: How does the Leader of the House reconcile a Government who say that they want to privatise British Rail with a Prime Minister who appears to want to run British Rail? Is not the problem the fact that the travelling public are now paying in full for the Government's 11-year neglect of our rail system, and is not the answer to give BR access to the private markets to increase investment and to give private services access to the rail network to increase competition?

Mr. MacGregor: At present, BR is engaged on a massive programme of capital investment to improve services. I believe that the public are prepared to pay more in charges to secure that improvement in services. As for the charge about the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend had a view to express about those lines that were faced with a higher-than-average increase to reflect the benefits of extra investment and better services. In the case of one line, he said that that should happen only when the better services were delivered. That is the citizens charter already operating.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Bowis: Has my right hon. Friend been able to study the case of my constituent who stands to lose his job and is being victimised at his place of work because of his support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-poll tax campaign, despite the fact that 30 of his workmates take the same view and are not being sacked? Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter? He will understand that on this occasion I cannot name my constituent, but his job is as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on.

Mr. MacGregor: Far be it from me to intrude into the private grief of the Labour party, but I noticed that the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party said today:
The NEC decision to suspend them"—
that is referring to my hon. Friend's constituent—


has no bearing on the parliamentary party. This is not on the agenda.
We do not really know where those Labour Members stand.

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Haynes: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has been preaching democracy in Zimbabwe today, is the Leader of the House aware that this Government allow people to choose, so they say? If that is the case, why do they not allow people to choose whether hospitals should opt out?

Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely what the Government have been doing. They have done so not only in that respect but in grant-maintained schools and in many other areas. They have increased the range of choice for pensions, savings and so on. It is a marked contrast with the Labour party.

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that council tenants in Labour-controlled boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham pay high rents and receive a poor level of service for repairs and maintenance. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the citizens charter tenants have the right to insist on a proper standard of service from their councils? That is a service which council tenants already pay for in their rent.

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance about the citizens charter. Later this year the new tenants charter will be published. It will strengthen the rights of council tenants to secure proper repairs and maintenance for their homes. We shall also introduce compulsory competitive tendering in housing management, which will ensure that tenants, as much as those who currently own their homes, receive the benefits of competition and the best possible service. I have sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend makes.
The history of the Labour councils was most eloquently expressed yesterday by the former Labour mayor of Hackney. She said of Hackney:
Social services and education are in a shambles yet the party only pretends to deal with these problems through cosmetic reorganisations.

Squatting

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the law on the unlawful occupation of private property known as squatting.
As Home Secretary I receive letters almost daily showing real grievances on the part of owners and lawful occupiers about squatting and I have had representations from many Members of Parliament. There is no doubt that squatting can cause considerable distress, inconvenience and financial loss.
There are no valid arguments in defence of squatting. It represents the seizure of another's property without consent. It can cause distress to lawful occupants both by the deprivation itself and afterwards when the property is left in a squalid state. No matter how compelling the squatters' own circumstances are claimed to be by their apologists, it is wrong that legitimate occupants should be deprived of the use of their property. The paper which I am publishing today is not concerned with spurious arguments which claim to justify squatting. Rather it considers the various remedies which are or might be available to dispossessed owners.
Squatters can prevent houses from being sold after the owners have moved away and need to sell in order to pay for a new home. People are often intimidated by squatting in nearby houses fearing that their home may be next. Squatters may be unruly and disturb the tranquillity of peaceable and law-abiding neighbourhoods. Small private landlords who rely heavily on rent may be denied that through squatting.
A new practice of shop-squatting has also developed over the past few years where squatters occupy an empty shop, offer shoddy goods, provide unfair competition, and usually disappear very quickly before the law can catch up with them.
The Criminal Law Act 1977 covers the worst cases where an owner-occupier and some tenants are made homeless as a result of squatting. In other cases, it is unlawful for the owner to use or threaten violence. This means that the Act prevents an owner from breaking a pane of glass in his own front door to obtain entry to his own property.
Apart from the changes in the 1977 Act owners and lawful occupiers have to look to the civil courts to uphold their rights to their own property. There are accelerated procedures in the civil court to secure repossession in urgent cases, but the cost of such actions could be between £500 and £800. With the exception of the powers under the 1977 Act, in cases of squatting the police can intervene only if there is a criminal activity such as causing damage, threatening behaviour or the use of drugs.
The present state of the law is patently unsatisfactory. We have been reviewing the criminal law and civil law remedies available to protect innocent people and to enable them to regain the use of their property.
The law in this matter is most complex. Some cases of squatting are clear cut, but not all. Genuine disputes occur between landlord and tenant. To accept in principle that the criminal law should go further to deal with squatting is not enough without careful definition of where it should stop. We do not want the law against squatters to spill into other types of property disputes.
Any changes in law must be practical and enforceable. I am, therefore, publishing today a consultation document which explains what the present remedies are, discusses the weaknesses in them, and sets out some ways of moving forward. We are seeking views from as wide a range of interested people as possible by the end of March 1992.
The Government have decided that the law needs to be changed to safeguard the rights of owners. We want to move forward with the widest possible agreement, based on consideration for other people and respect for their property. Squatting can have very damaging effects on the lives of its innocent victims. I hope that the House will welcome the process of change which I have set in hand today.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Opposition share the view that action is necessary to reduce and eventually eliminate squatting. We shall certainly co-operate in the consultation exercise which the Home Secretary proposes. We shall offer our proposals for what he describes as the "widest possible" area of agreement on the subject. I shall begin that exercise by asking him to clarify the Government's position.
The consultation paper asserts that there is a strong case for bringing squatting within the criminal law. In his statement the Home Secretary took the argument further with the sentence that began,
To accept in principle that the criminal law should go further".
Have the Government already decided that the criminal law is the right remedy? If so, inevitably the area of consultation will be restricted.
Secondly, what does the Home Secretary propose to do about some, not all, of the causes of squatting, which are certainly far more complex than the "self-gratification" —his words—to which he attributes the phenomenon in paragraph 63 of the consultative paper? As is the case with the ever increasing crime rate, it is important to condemn unlawful behaviour and simultaneously to take action against its causes. In squatting, as in other matters, we do not have to choose between taking tough action against unlawful conduct and removing the conditions in which unlawful conduct is encouraged: we should do both simultaneously.
If the Government are serious about ending squatting, they need to take some action to reduce homelessness, which has increased from 56,000 families in 1979 to 145,000 families in 1990. If the Government are serious about taking action against squatting, they need also to take action to restore income support to 16 and 17-year-olds, the removal of which has driven so many of them into shop doorways and cardboard shelters.
The scandal of homelessness affronts all civilised people. Although I share the Government's view that action should be taken against squatting, the Government are only nibbling at the edges of the problem if they do not deal with the root cause, which is homelessness. Since the Home Secretary has chosen to make this statement today, may we be assured that the fundamental cause of squatting—homelessness—will be the subject of a statement tomorrow?

Mr. Baker: I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will support the process that I have set in hand. I confirm that the Government accept dot there is a case for change and that there must be an extension of the criminal law in this


respect. We want to consult widely upon this issue because some cases are immensely complicated as they involve the landlord and tenant and we do not want such cases to come under the squatting provisions.
On the general point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, squatting is no answer for the single homeless. We have other proposals and measures to deal with that problem and I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of some of them. In London this year we are making available substantially increased investment in hostel accommodation. Over the next three years in London alone we are committing such sums of money to deal specifically with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We committed £15 million last year, £38 million this year and we shall commit £43 million next year, together with assistance to the voluntary organisa-tions. That is equivalent to £100 million on hostels in London alone.
On other measures for the homeless, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the announcement that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning made last week. He announced a scheme worth £25 million to enable local authorities to bring back into use some 100,000 empty properties above shops in high streets.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome such announcements. He asked for positive measures to deal with the homeless and we have a whole range of positive measures. The right hon. Gentleman should not use the argument of homelessness for not being fully committed to doing away with the evil of squatting. That is what we will do.

Mr. Simon Burns: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement today will be warmly welcomed by many people, including constituents of mine who have suffered from the reprehensible activities of squatters?
Will my right hon. Friend accept that extending the criminal law to give adequate protection to those people who are trying to sell their empty houses as second homes or retirement homes—they do not have such protection at the moment—is crucial to the success of any moves to tighten the law? Will he confirm that taking such action would minimise the time that squatters remain unlawfully in those properties and the damage that they can cause, with the ensuing misery and cost to the owners?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. He has brought to my attention cases of his constituents who have tried to sell a house that has been left empty after they have bought another house. The house that those people have tried to sell has then been occupied by squatters and there is no effective remedy other than through the civil courts, which takes a long time and is an expensive remedy. That is simply not fair. We are changing the law for all the reasons that my hon. Friend has cited.

Mr. David Bellotti: My party supports the Home Secretary's statement. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government accept that there is a need for change in the way in which central Government deal with local authorities, which, in turn, can deal with some of their housing problems. If the consultation procedure confirms that, will the Government be prepared to change their policies to deal with the problem of squatting?
Does the Home Secretary agree that the problem of squatting in shops is now so serious, given that people are able to break into property and change the locks so that the owners are unable to get into their property, that waiting for the consultation period to finish next March will not help to overcome it? On that score we do not want consultation; we need action today.

Mr. Baker: I am quite sure that if there had been no consultation procedure the Liberals would have been the first to say that we needed a consultation procedure because that is their stock in trade. We are not proceeding slowly as the consultation process will cover a short period, but it is sensible to proceed in that manner. I want to formulate the proposals as soon as that consultation period is over and I want to bring them to the House as soon as possible because there is a wrong that must be righted.
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the incidence of shop squatting has increased. It increased substantially just before last Christmas, and I expect that it will increase again. The present law is inadequate to deal with the problem, and that is why I intend to introduce new proposals.
On the question of local authorities, I should remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Belotti) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that, apart from the assistance to hostels of which I have reminded the House today and the scheme announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning last week, we are spending £300 million on the homelessness initiative. That is targeted on areas of particular risk, especially London and certain other inner conurbations. That initiative will provide a great deal of accommodation, precisely the sort of accommodation that many people living in squats will want.

Mr. Julian Amery: I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be warmly welcomed in my constituency. As well as consulting with the local authorities of Brighton and East Sussex, will my right hon. Friend also contact Sussex university where some of the homelessness problem arises?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I shall certainly do that, and I am willing to receive representations from any area. We deal specifically in the consultation document with squatting in certain other premises, beyond residential and commercial —in universities and industrial premises—but we are not proposing to take action in those areas. We propose to take action in the areas to which I referred, which are residential and commercial.

Mr. Alan Williams: The right hon. Gentleman's announcement will be greatly welcomed in my constituency. Does he have any proposals to deal with a particular form of the problem, which is that of habitual squatters who squat for many months in one property, at great inconvenience to the owner, the neighbours, the police and the council, and, as soon as they are moved out, immediately move into another squat? Will the proposals include a provision, perhaps an injunction procedure, to stop repetition of the offence?

Mr. Baker: Injunctions usually represent a slow and elaborate procedure for dealing with issues such as this. It will become an offence to move in the way the right hon. Gentleman described. At present, squatters can move from


one property to another, and unless they move into one that is occupied by the residential owner at the time the owner cannot do anything about it. But if we change the law in the way I envisage and create an offence with a penalty—the present penalty is six months' imprisonment or a fine of £2,000 rising to £5,000—it will act as a major deterrent.
I welcome the support that the right hon. Gentleman has offered, and I hope that that degree of support will continue as the consultation process continues.

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend's statement will be warmly received throughout the country and particularly by ordinary people who are the principal victims of squatting misery. Is he aware that many of those who engage in squatting—whether they occupy a shop in Oxford street and sell shoddy goods before they decamp or occupy homes and flats—are often intolerant, aggressive and intimidating?

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem has got out of hand and often people of modest means are deprived of their property. Earlier this year I received a letter from a lady in the west midlands. She wrote that her father had worked for 60 years in a local factory and that when he died her mother went to live elsewhere. She wrote:
Last May, mum passed away, leaving her cottage as an investment for her four children. The house was emptied of all her personal possessions and I put it up for sale. All her furnishings, carpets and crockery were left in the house and every few weeks I would go over and clean the windows, hoover and keep the garden looking nice, because it was always the pride of her home. Three weeks ago, five squatters moved in and they have taken complete charge of our house, having had the electricity and water turned on again"—
as might happen in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The lady ended her sad letter by saying:
The law is unfair to the working people who keep this country going and something must be done to get the law changed.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would have been more appropriate had he made a statement today about the need for permanent accommodation to be built by local authorities? Is he further aware that much of the problem is due to the fact that many local authorities are not, and have not been for years, in a position to build accommodation for people? I agree that many aspects of squatting are undesirable, as the letter from which the right hon. Gentleman read made clear. But even more undesirable are the appalling problems faced by people who cannot find accommodation. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that not simply the homeless but many of our constituents stand no chance of being offered rented accommodation because the Government have not allowed local authorities to build?

Mr. Baker: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the £100 million being spent on hostel accommodation in London alone, of the £300 million being made available for the homeless initiative, and of the initiative announced last week to bring flats above shops back into use. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give a lecture on this subject, he might lecture local authorities about the 100,000 empty council houses and flats, of which 24,000 have been empty for more than a year. They should be brought back into use.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: My right hon. Friend's statement will be warmly welcomed in my constituency.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can never —repeat never—be any excuse for squatting in someone else's property? Does he accept that, in my constituency and elsewhere, innocent householders, shop owners and people who live next to open spaces that have been invaded have been very worried in the past, feeling that the remedies available to them at civil law have been too slow and too expensive? May I urge him to bring the matter within the criminal law—and congratulate him again on an excellent statement?

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend, in whose constituency squatting is quite common. He has already brought cases to my attention, and it is clear that something must be done.
As I have said, the sheer complexity of the law has made us rather reluctant to deal with the matter in the past. The law is indeed complex, but it is clear that the criminal law, as it was extended in 1977, must be extended again. When a civil remedy is changed to a criminal remedy, it is right for the House of Commons to be told and consulted and for wider consultation to take place as well.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Home Secretary accept that the impact of the recession has left many more high street shops empty to be squatted in by unscrupulous cowboy traders? Does he understand that both traders and trading standards officers are worried about the impact of the problem in the Christmas period? Given that background, why cannot he deal with this narrow and specific aspect of the problem more swiftly than he now proposes?

Mr. Baker: I must resist the temptation. It is a complicated change of law; it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are dealing not only with the law of landlord and tenant, but with the legislation relating to commercial lettings. I entirely accept, however, that the matter must be put right, and I want to do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the consultation process will include the question of squatting on land as well as that of squatting on property? No doubt his officials have let him know what has happened during the recess in Sandhurst, in my constituency, where so-called travellers have been squatting on land, causing terrific damage, nuisance and an environmental health problem. Each time that they are moved on, they move to some other land just down the road. They are beating the law. The law no longer works. My constituents no longer have faith in the law, and it must be changed.

Mr. Baker: I am well aware of such problems. The paper that I am publishing today, however, concerns squatting on premises; it does not consider unlawful occupation of open land, as is explained in paragraph 2,
which raises different questions of law and practice and is subject to separate legislation—in particular the Public Order Act 1986. Following a public review of section 39 of that Act, which deals with aggravated trespass on land, the Government announced on 22 May that no change in the law was required.


My hon. Friend should know, however, that I have issued guidance to the police about how they should handle incidents similar to the one to which he has referred. I shall send him a copy.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. Is he aware, however, of the problems created by private landlords, such as the ones who bought British Coal houses of ex-miners for next to nothing, and then deliberately refused to put tenants into them when they had become empty? On the Townville estate in my constituency, 48 per cent. of the 270,000 houses are now empty. The landlords, the London and Gloucester property company, never attempted to put tenants into them.
We must not support squatting, of course, but it is very tempting to do so when we imagine ourselves in the position of a family with kids and no shelter, given that all those houses are empty.

Mr. Baker: I understand that. However, the hon. Gentleman's example goes rather beyond the matter with which I am dealing. [Interruption.] Yes, it does. Here we are dealing with the unlawful and illegal occupation of residential or commercial properties. I gather from what the hon. Gentleman told us that that did not occur in the case that he cited.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many million more home owners will be pleased by today's initiative than when the matter was last addressed, in 1977? A high proportion of those people are elderly, and they have always considered that there is something wrong with a criminal law that appears to protect the squatter against the lawful owner.
Will my right hon. Friend give particular attention to one problem that has come to light? It arises when a squatter has actually been invited into a house by its owner under some pretext, and can therefore be evicted only in the event of violence, which most people are reluctant to use. Will my right hon. Friend consider that matter when the consultation process comes to an end?

Mr. Baker: I shall certainly make sure that my hon. and learned Friend's latter point is considered. If there is an agreement between a landlord and a tenant and the tenant has entered improperly into possession, that is not a matter of squatting. It is when the tenant commits an act of trespass.
I could not agree more with my hon. and learned Friend's first point. As a result of us being in power for the last 12 years, home ownership has increased dramatically —by well over 2 million. Therefore, many more people are likely to benefit from the proposals than, say, 12 years ago.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Why does the Home Secretary refuse to extend the legislation to open spaces? Is he not aware of the problems caused by gipsies and travellers, particularly in my constituency, who for 15 years have squatted on parks, car parks, school playing fields and derelict factory sites? As soon as they are moved on, after lengthy court hearings, they come back again to another place. Why does the Home Secretary not accept that this is a bigger problem for working class people living in council houses? They have to live next to these gipsies, with their generators going every night, with their horses,

their health problems, their dogs and their threats of violence. It is every bit as big a problem for these people as it is for people with property in Kensington. Why does not the Home Secretary extend the safeguard to open spaces?

Mr. Baker: I am well aware of the troubles caused by gipsies. I am aware of them in my own constituency, which is moving towards becoming a designated authority under the Act. That is the best way to deal with it. Once an authority becomes designated, it is much easier to move the gipsies on. I have already said, however, that my proposals today specifically deal with squatting and the illegal occupation of premises rather than with land.

Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend consider including new rights for the owners of some commercial properties other than shops? I am thinking in particular of district health authorities where property has previously been used for residential or treatment purposes.

Mr. Baker: If there are such cases—one has not come my way—where property, which is empty and which is owned by a public institution prior to being sold or disposed of, is squatted, we shall certainly consider doing that under the change of law that we envisage.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does the Home Secretary accept that the problem of squatting, which I do not condone, is likely to worsen in student areas as a result of the punitive measures that the Government have imposed on students? Why did housing benefit for students have to be abolished? What proposals will the Government make to restore housing benefit and improve the housing position of thousands of students?

Mr. Baker: I do not accept the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question. Squatting has been a problem for society for a very long time. That was what led the Labour Government in 1977 to bring residential squatting within the criminal law. The problem has been with us for a very long time, and it is about time that the nettle was grasped and the matter sorted out.

Mr. David Harris: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, but is it not clear to him that there is a widespread feeling on both sides of the House that the proposals must be extended to the illegal occupation of land? The point that he made, with every justification, about the squatting of property surely applies just as much to the occupation of land. My right hon. Friend should take action. People who go in for this practice cause absolute misery to decent folk living in the area, as well as to the owners of the land. He must surely think again.

Mr. Baker: I understand the concern expressed by Members on both sides of the House. I dare say that if I came up with proposals on this matter they would not be so widely welcomed on all sides. It is a controversial area. I should be happy to consider the general law of trespass on public land. It has wide ramifications. The law is infinitely more complex than the law relating to premises. However, I have an open and a welcoming mind and always want to extend the protection of property, which has been one of the abiding interests of our party over the centuries.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Home Secretary realise that the law of criminal trespass works effectively only when the police exercise the power of arrest? Does he also realise that arresting people and keeping them in police cells or perhaps in prison is not necessarily a cheaper process? Does not he think that we should speed up court procedures and make them simpler and perhaps give magistrates courts a civil jurisdiction rather like the ouster jurisdiction that they have in matrimonial cases? That might be better than involving the police, who are already overburdened in these matters.

Mr. Baker: I agree with half of what the hon. Gentleman said about speeding up the processes, but I do not think that this matter can be resolved without creating a power of arrest for the police. I am sure that that will be one of the conclusions of the consultation process.

Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed in my constituency in Bournemouth where there is a serious problem, as there is in many other south coast towns? It affects not just second homes or properties that are for sale but the property of elderly people in nursing homes. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need to extend the power further to local authorities? There are many examples of listed buildings or buildings within conservation areas that have been severely damaged by the occupation of squatters, and there is sometimes a suspicion that developers may have connived at the occupation so that the property is so severely damaged that it can be demolished. That is a matter of considerable public interest, and I believe that local authorities should be given powers to protect buildings and communities.

Mr. Baker: That is dealt with in paragraph 39 of the consultation document. My hon. Friend is suggesting that, while increasing the power of the residential owner to call in the police to deal with squatting, neighbours and the local authority should also be able to exercise that power. It represents a substantial change in British law if we give to a local authority a property right that is conveyed only upon the owner of the property. None the less, my hon. Friend's comment about the possible danger to listed buildings and buildings of architectural interest is interesting, and I shall ensure that it is considered during the consultation process.

Mr. David Trimble: In his statement, the Home Secretary referred to the cost of civil proceedings. Is not the problem here the fact that increasingly legal aid is not assisting the persons of limited means who are often the victims of squatting? Should not that be addressed? Also, if the Home Secretary is considering extending the criminal law to deal with this matter, will he consider extending to Northern Ireland the Criminal Law Act 1977, which he believes to be inadequate?

Mr. Baker: I shall not be drawn on the hon. Gentleman's latter point. The proposals that I have announced today relate only to England and Wales. There is something in the hon. Gentleman's initial point.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: May I express the welcome that the people of Yardley will give to the consultation paper? I urge my right hon. Friend to look at one of the underlying principles, which is that a squat in one property in any local authority area would be

a squat in all properties in that area. That would cover the points mentioned. I have a letter from Tracey Smith and her husband of 65 Yardley road, Acocks Green. She is expecting a baby shortly, but was denied a flat by the Labour authority in Birmingham because it was occupied by squatters. The proposals will help tremendously.
May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the position of travellers? They are unlicensed, non-tax paying scrap metal dealers who tow their squats behind them, despoiling the parks and residential amenities in my constituency in a regular routine year after year. May I add my voice to those——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is three points. I think that that is enough.

Mr. Baker: I quite understand that several hon. Members would like the law on gipsies to be reconsidered. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for such matters, I shall ensure that that is drawn to his attention. The powers of local authorities will be increased and enhanced to deal with squatting. It is unfair that local authority properties should be squatted when there are such long housing lists in certain areas. It is incredible mismanagement that so many council properties are still empty.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary accept that there is a close link between the many homeless people in London and the problem of squatting, and that hostels are not the answer? The answer is a massive purchasing and building programme to enable housing associations and local authorities to house the homeless. In London in particular the problem is not so much empty local authority property as large areas of speculatively built luxury homes that are deliberately kept empty for private gain. The right hon. Gentleman should be addressing those issues rather than taking a punitive approach, which does not solve the problem.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's views are not entirely shared by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 50,000 hostel places are available—we have increased them substantially—and that many squatters are single people. We are committing £100 million to hostel spending in the next three years, in addition to an expenditure of £300 million on the homelessness initiative. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows if he follows these matters, capital spending on housing will increase to £2 billion next year.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I join in the welcome for my right hon. Friend's statement? If an Englishman's home is his castle, is not it high time that squatting was made criminally illegal and not only unlawful? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing number of professional squatters in desirable residences, not only in London but throughout the country? It simply is not enough to rely on hoping to call in the police if there is damage after the event or on embarking on a costly eviction process. Change is needed and, as the Government have proposed to spend much money on substantial measures to deal with homelessness, it is high time to crack down on squatters.

Mr. Baker: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support. The measures that I have announced will apply to all parts


of the country and all types of squatting. I am glad to see such widespread support across the House for them. Perhaps the consultation period could be a bit shorter as a result.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The twin evil peaks for many residents in a densely populated constituency such as mine—three quarters of my constituents are tenants of the local authority—are anti-social squatters as neighbours and empty property. Will the Home Secretary investigate whether proposals that have been put on an all-party basis to Ministers at the Department of the Environment over the years to give people a right to take over not the ownership but the occupancy of publicly or privately owned property could be included in legislation to deal with squatting? They both need to be dealt with at the same time.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is sitting next to me and has heard the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not sure that that is the right way to handle the problem, but one of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is shared by many inner-London Members, is anti-social squatting and the disturbance that it creates for many peaceable and law-abiding people. That is what we shall try to address.

Mr. John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the increasing incidence of squatting in my constituency has not been related to homelessness but has been organised by groups of people determined to take over different properties, thereby causing much distress? Will he take on board the point that where there has been occupation of open space, which has occurred in my constituency, there has been an accompanying increase in crime and vandalism in surrounding areas? He could kill two birds with one stone by including in the consultation paper legislation to deal with open-space squatting.

Mr. Baker: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I assure him that I shall bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. John Battle: Is the Home Secretary aware that one of the primary causes of squatting by young people, particularly the under-18s, is the fact that the Government changed the rules to deny them access to income support and therefore to any help with the costs of rent and housing? Will he approach the Secretary of State for Social Security and insist that youngsters of 17 should again have access to income support?

Mr. Baker: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Squatting did not suddenly start in 1986 or 1987; it goes back to the 1960s and 1970s. That is why the Labour Government had to take a half-hearted measure against it in 1977. We shall do the job properly.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Although I welcome the discussion paper, I do not believe that it goes far enough and, for once, I must disagree with my right hon. Friend. The discussion paper appears to give protection to those who own property in which squatters are living but no protection to property owners when squatters are on the land outside. There will be grave disappointments at the fact that we have not taken on

board the problems faced in particular by many businesses when travelling families move on to land and they cannot get them off. The law as it stands is an ass. I urge my right hon. Friend to bring forward soon another discussion document that addresses itself to this great problem.

Mr. Baker: Following the Public Order Act 1986, I issued guidance to the police force on how to handle these incidents which continue to occur around the country. It is my responsibility as Home Secretary to deal with such matters. If there is a demand for public discussion on the law of trespass in general, particularly on gipsies, I shall draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Home Secretary admit that the increase in squatting is largely due to the Government's policies? People were told to get on their bikes and find work. They came to London and some squatted. Benefits were withdrawn and some more people squatted. The poll tax was inflicted on them and some more squatted. If the Government want to resolve the problem, they should do two things—release the 35,000 Government-owned houses, one quarter of which are under the control of the Home Office, and allow local authorities to use the money that the Government are stopping them from using in order to build houses again and get back to the targets that we used to have.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is as misguided as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). It is absurd to say that squatting has increased because of Government policy. There has been squatting because certain people wanted a squatting lifestyle. Squatting existed in the 1960s and 1970s, and there were some dramatic cases. The Labour Government tried to deal with it, but their measures were not effective. Our proposals would be much more effective.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call those hon. Members who are standing. I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue only until 4.20 pm, as there is a ten-minute Bill to follow and the House should move on to the defence debate at 4.30 pm. Brief questions, please.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that these measures will help those Labour councils that have so lost control of their housing stock—mainly through pathetic management—that they do not know who is inside the properties that they are renting out? Those councils do not control their properties; key money changes hands; councils are not collecting rents; people are squatting; and councils do not know who is in their properties. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that councils help, or, if they do not take advantage of these measures, will he remove ownership of such properties from local authorities and give it to housing associations so that that stock can be brought back into use?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is sitting beside me and has heard all my hon. Friend's advice. My hon. Friend referred to errors and mistakes in management. All the lists which I have seen show that the 10 local authorities with the worst-managed housing stock are all Labour.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend's statement will be extremely welcome in Canterbury and Whitstable, where we have had two unpleasant squats by young and violent criminals. Will my right hon. Friend ignore the blandishments of the civil liberties lobby which will start from the moment he walks out of the Chamber? Will he listen to the strongly worded views expressed in the House today and ensure that we have the most watertight and the toughest possible law to deal with this important matter?

Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly what I intend to do. This grievance hurts many innocent victims. We should do something about it within the time scale announced. This is a short time scale for legislation on trespass and squatting.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the context of this welcome statement, will my right hon. Friend at least not rule out the possibility of looking again at the Public Order Act 1986? Is he aware that the sort of squatting by which people in Teignbridge have been plagued is gangs of brigands descending on open land? As there is an insufficient number of motor vehicles in the area, the law is virtually powerless to touch them. I accept entirely that the law is a difficult and complicated area, but I must say to my right hon.. Friend that that is a small measure which would require a simple and straightforward change in the law. For many people in rural areas, it would be invaluable.

Mr. Baker: I hear what my hon. Friend has said. Let me say at once that I am not unsympathetic to that. The law on trespass on land is immensely complicated. Clearly many hon. Members of all parties have said, not only today but repeatedly, that the law on gipsies is unsatisfactory. As I have said, I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that it will not only be beneficial to the owners of property in which a squat is taking place, but will be widely welcomed by the neightbours on each side of such properties? Their lives have often been made absolute hell as a result of squats. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the statement should be widely welcomed in the appallingly ill-managed London boroughs of Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark, which account for 65 per cent. of the present squats in London?

Mr. Baker: I am quite sure that the statement will be welcomed in those three boroughs, and it is badly needed in those three boroughs. However, it will also be welcomed in constituencies such as my hon. Friend's because squatting is very anti-social and can disturb the neighbourhood and the street. The neighbours of a squat can be just as angry as the person who is deprived of his home.

Mr. Chris Butler: May I re-emphasise to my right hon. Friend that revised police guidance will not be enough to control the nuisance of itinerants? In Warrington, we have, not a temporary, but a permanent nuisance. It takes a long time to move such people on, they leave a lot of squalor behind them, and they move just a mile up the road.

Mr. Baker: I hear what my hon. Friend has said, and I repeat what I have said in reply to other colleagues this afternoon.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement today will be welcomed, but that what will really be welcomed is, at the end of the consultation exercise, a robust and effective use of the criminal law, unlike section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986? Avon has decided not to use that section and, consequently, those who are really affected—not the landowner, but the people who live around the land that is being squatted on—have misery, degradation, dirt, squalor and crime on their doorsteps.

Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole thrust of the proposals that I have brought to the House this afternoon is to extend the criminal law in the areas that I have described. I hear what he says on the other matters.

Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend obviously understands that, in seaside economies, there is a lot of empty property during the winter. Will the Bill, when it is brought before the House, address two specific points?
First, the citizen expects the police to be able to act and the police are frustrated because they cannot do so. That leads to a general deterioration in respect for the local police. Secondly, Mr. Christopher Cox, whose case has been drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention, has been the victim on the Isle of Wight of a criminal gang who go round squatting in premises and using blackmail. They ask for up to £2,000 to vacate the property. That is becoming a thoroughgoing racket, and I believe that it is prevalent not only on the Isle of Wight but throughout the south coast. It must be stopped.

Mr. Baker: On my hon. Friend's second point, I suspect that it is already a criminal offence. On the first point, I agree entirely that the whole thrust of my proposals is to give a role to the police in dealing with the matter because at the moment they are frustrated. They are often called to a squat and can do nothing about it because of the limitations of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The proposals that I have put before the House today will change that.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the Home Secretary agree that squatters want a free ride, and that they do not wish to pay rent to anybody or to pay community charge to anybody? If it is unlawful to break and enter and to take charge of a motor vehicle, it must be unlawful to break and enter and to take charge of somebody's dwelling. On travellers, let us have a revision of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 by the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Baker: I am glad that my hon. Friend stopped short of the advice that he gave me at the Tory party conference to deal with the matter. I can assure him that he will not be disappointed by the robustness of the proposals as they are carried through and developed in the next few months.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been here since 2.30 pm, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: But was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement? Did he hear the statement?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been here since 2.30 pm, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the statement? That is what I am asking. Did he hear it or did he not?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As I explained, Mr. Speaker, I have been here since 2.30 pm.

Mr. Speaker: That seems a pretty qualified response, but I shall call the hon. Gentleman nevertheless.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There was no qualification in my response, Mr. Speaker. I have been here throughout, and I was here for the statement.
May I ask the Home Secretary a simple question? Has there been an increase in squatting in private residential property in recent years?

Mr. Baker: May I first confirm that the hon. Gentleman was here during my statement—indeed, he was squatting there throughout.
The question of numbers is dealt with in the consultation document and, according to one estimate, there could be as many as 50,000 illegal squatters at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should have phrased my question in the hon. Gentleman's own words. I should have asked him, "Yes or No?"

Local Government (Scotland)

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to local government organisation in Scotland.
My Bill would amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and so put right the injustice done to part of my constituency when that Act was passed.
The history is quite clear. In 1975 the communities of Cambuslang and Rutherglen, formerly governed by the district council of Lanark and the town council of the royal borough of Rutherglen, campaigned for a district council for Cambuslang and Rutherglen, but their campaign was unsuccessful. The communities were incorporated into the Glasgow district council area under measures implemented in 1975. It must be said that, 16 years later, the move is not regarded as a success in Cambuslang and Rutherglen.
The councils that administered the areas previously were quite successful. They reflected the interests of the community and were regarded highly by the people of the areas. Both communities feel that, since reorganisation, they have suffered a loss of identity. They now come under a much larger council than they were used to before. It may not be a very palatable fact, but it is clearly the case that the people in the areas are used to smaller, more responsive councils—councils that they feel they can influence on a daily basis without being lost in a giant bureaucracy.
We are asking for a district council because we believe that certain services are basic to people's daily lives. For instance, issues affecting housing repairs, and especially housing allocation, are of great importance locally. There are stable communities in the two areas, but when young people are of an age to get married and set up house, they are obliged to accept offers of housing all over the Glasgow district council area rather than within reach of their families as was previously the case.
This is probably the best time to make the point that the campaign and the Bill are not aimed at Glasgow district council. The Bill is not anti-Glasgow, and it is certainly not anti-Glasgow people. I wish to make that absolutely plain because I have the privilege and honour to represent the Glasgow people of Castlemilk, East and Toryglen, and they are the salt of the earth. The Bill is pro-Cambuslang and Rutherglen and, for the life of me, I do not see how anyone can interpret that, of necessity, as being anti-Glasgow.
I will willingly deal with the question of viability. I accept that, in the modern age, and to meet modern needs and demands, a council must be viable. It must also be able to provide the level of services that people are entitled to expect. It must be emphasised, however, that the size of the electorate of Cambuslang and Rutherglen is similar to, or larger than, that of many existing district councils within Strathclyde, including Clydebank, Clydesdale, Eastwood, Bearsden and Milngavie and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. I am prepared to listen to debates about the principle of setting up a district council but I am not prepared to accept any criticism on the ground of viability. All the areas that I cited are doing reasonably successfully and there is no reason why the part of my constituency with which the Bill deals should not do likewise.
It is important to stress that we are talking about a district council. We make no attempt to claim that an area of our size, on its own, could run successfully regional council functions such as the police, fire, transport and strategic physical planning. We are after district council services.
A campaign for a local council has been set up over the past two months and 25,000 leaflets have been distributed. People have been on the main streets in the part of the constituency concerned. A series of public meetings have been held and so far the aggregate total of people attending those meetings is more than 2,500. In these days when we try to get people to attend public meetings, it is an outstanding success to achieve such attendances at meetings and it shows the level of support in the area for the campaign. We are also running a parliamentary petition and I expect more than 15,000 signatures to be gathered. I intend to present the petition to the House some time next month.
We also accept that there is a case for a city council or city authority as people on the periphery enter the city and avail themselves of the city's activities, namely, cultural activities. The rate support grant or amount. of Government support—no matter what it is called—is gathered from central taxation and income tax and VAT. It is wrong to say that people outwith cities do not contribute to the budget of city councils. As taxpayers, we all contribute and people in surrounding areas contribute to cities. It would be better if people who disagreed with that produced facts and figures instead of deriding the other point of view.
We believe that in our area a district council would be more accountable and responsive to people's needs. There would be better control for the public to ensure that the services delivered by the council were more efficient and cost effective. The communities of Cambuslang and Rutherglen have traditions which date back hundreds of

years. They have a community spirit which councils and Governments are spending millions of pounds trying to create. We already have that community spirit.
I am not looking at those areas through rose-tinted glasses. Previous councils made mistakes, but on balance they did more good things than bad. I am prepared to argue that if we achieve a district council for Cambuslang and Rutherglen, it would make mistakes and do good things and bad things, but, most importantly, the communities in those two areas would readily identify on a community basis with a district council of Cambuslang and Rutherglen.
We are convinced that we can take the best of our traditions forward and build on them and ensure that we have a council that can deliver services effectively and, most importantly, one that is accountable to local people.
The purpose of the Bill is to create a 20th district council—a Cambuslang and Rutherglen district council —with Strathclyde regional council.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. George Robertson, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mrs. Irene Adams and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Thomas McAvoy accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to local government organisation in Scotland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 October and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 5577/91, relating to the European Coal and Steel Community, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Points of Order

Mr. Peter Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear the hon. Member's motion. He has not submitted it to me. I must have a motion submitted to me by 12 noon.

Mr. Thurnham: My constituents have been——

Mr. Speaker: Is it the same application about which the hon. Member has been to see me?

Mr. Thurnham: Indeed. I had a meeting with the chairman of the health authority today and he thoroughly refutes allegations about cancellations of operations in the north-west.

Mr. Speaker: But I must have the motion submitted to me. I cannot take it without notice. We must move on.

Mr. Thurnham: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman came to see me. I will not say what discussions passed between us, but he knows that I must have such applications by noon. I cannot hear his application without having seen it.

Mr. Thurnham: I submitted my application before noon.

Mr. Speaker: I told the hon. Gentleman when he came to see me that his application was out of order. I cannot accept another one unless I have seen it.

Mr. Thurnham: Since seeing you, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted "Erskine May".

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have done so, but he has not consulted me, and that is important.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear that the brilliance of the lamps that were introduced for the convenience of the television transmitters has been increased since we last met. Are you aware that it is now really quite uncomfortable to try to maintain a view of the Conservative Benches, not only because of the composi-tion but because of the brilliance of the lights? Will it be possible to have them turned down while live transmissions of the House are not going on? If not, some of us will have to contemplate wearing dark glasses in this place.

Mr. Speaker: I came to see the new lights when they were put up, and I actually took the precaution of sitting in the hon. Gentleman's seat to see whether they might possibly distract him. I came to the conclusion that they were not troublesome to hon. Members sitting on the Back Benches. We must now move on.

Mr. Thurnham: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. Gentleman quite bluntly that I am sorry but I am not hearing his point of order.

Mr. Thurnham: May I refer you to——

Mr. Speaker: No. I cannot hear the motion today.

Orders of the Day — Defence

SECOND DAY

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [14 October]

That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 contained in Cm 1559.—[Mr. Torn King.]

Which amendment was: to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question arid to add instead thereof:

`welcomes the continuing improvement in East-West relations and the development of NATO and the CSCE to accommodate these changes; recognises the opportunities now available for further reductions in defence expenditure; calls for the maximum co-operation with the United Kingdom's European partners to re-examine the roles and commitments of the armed forces; welcomes the successful negotiation of the START Treaty; calls on the Government to seek the establishment of further talks on strategic nuclear disarmament and then to secure British participation in such discussions; and urges the Government to provide assistance for defence industry diversification and expand the provision for re-training and re-housing ex-service personnel'. [Mr. O'Neill.]

Question again proposed That the amendment be made.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I may be able to call more hon. Members in this important debate. No fewer than 44 hon. Members have written in and hope to be called today. I therefore propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock. I hope that those who are called before and after that time will bear the limit in mind.

Mr. John Browne: ) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night you witnessed about 500,000 signatures being presented to the House before the Adjournment debate. They reflect just the tip of the iceberg and the very deep feeling that the Government have got the defence cuts wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter of argument; it is not a matter of order.

Mr. Browne: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I know what the hon. Member is seeking to do. I called the hon. Member in the debate in July. I say to him and to the other hon. Members who were called in that debate in July, which was on the same subject, that I cannot, in all fairness to their colleagues, call them again today.

Mr. Browne: That was not my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that and I accept that, although I have tabled an amendment, I will not be called. I accept that. The amendment that you have chosen comes from a position of less integrated defence, whereas the great feeling in this country is that there should be sufficient defence to be sure that we do not have a return to the high-risk defence policy of the 1930s. Would you please reconsider your decision to accept other amendments which demand less high-risk defence than the Government are offering?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here quite a long time now. He should know that my hands are tied. I can select only one amendment other than in a debate on the Queen's Speech and this is not the Queen's Speech.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just said that you have received 44 requests to take part in the debate. [Interruption.] I have perhaps ruined my chances, but is it possible to bring forward to 5 o'clock the time at which speeches can take just 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: That can be done only informally. I hope that the Front-Bench spokesmen—I do not know whether they can keep to 10 minutes—will be brief and that other hon. Members will bear that limit in mind.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the changes in the international political and military climate since we last debated this subject. But against the theme of ever more harmonious relations between east and west, there remains the risk of destabilising conflict in the third world—and closer to home. We have taken careful account of this in reaching decisions on restructuring our armed forces and I should like to address some of the implications of these decisions for the equipment programme. I shall also respond to some of the points that were raised last night about the size and shape of the Army and shall also refer to the important subject of defence research and development in the future.
First, the United States and Soviet statements that they are prepared to reduce their nuclear arsenals—welcome though they are—do not affect our own intention to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent as the cornerstone of our defence. But as the immediate threat of nuclear confrontation recedes, public attention in the western democracies has increasingly and quite rightly begun to look on the safety and security of the weapons. Last year a major review of nuclear weapon safety in the United States was carried out by Dr. Sidney Drell. In the United Kingdom, we have every reason to be confident that our stringent safety standards, exhaustive trials, and con-tinuous review and independent scrutiny ensure the safety of our weapons. Indeed, Dr. Drell recommended certain of our arrangements as a model for the United States to follow. But I have nevertheless invited the Department's chief scientific adviser to lead a small working group to examine the safety of United Kingdom nuclear weapons. The group includes a number of distinguished experts drawn from both inside and outside government. They have already started work and have been asked to report by the end of the year. Although their report will, inevitably, be classified, we shall make public a statement of its conclusions.
In the field of conventional naval equipment, we intend to maintain the Royal Navy's lead in anti-submarine warfare capability. We have announced the award of the prime contract for Merlin, the anti-submarine warfare variant of the EH101, which will replace the Navy's Sea King helicopters. Three of the new Duke class type 23s are already in service. Seven more are currently on order. Invitations to tender for up to three more type 23s were


announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) in June, and a further announcement on this will be made in the spring.
The three aircraft carriers will be retained. Their Sea Harriers and Sea Dart missiles provide a powerful air defence to complement the ASW capability provided by their helicopters. We have begun studies into an anti-air warfare frigate to replace the type 42 destroyers.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and will be brief. Is he now satisfied that the command and control system for the type 23 frigate will fully integrate all the weapons systems for that ship, or are there still worries on that score?

Mr. Clark: It is absolutely essential that the integration is complete and, because they are inseparable systems, that it applies to the Merlin EH101 helicopter. As my hon. Friend knows, the whole point of the contract negotiations to establish a prime contractor for the Merlin project was that the prime contractor should be completely responsible for the integration and effectiveness of the system. I am satisfied that he is bound to that by the contract.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the contract or contracts for the three type 23 frigates which I believe that the Minister said would be announced in the spring, may I point out that it would make very good sense for those vessel orders to be given to Yarrow on the upper Clyde? That shipyard employs hundreds of my constituents and is in dire straits.

Mr. Clark: I am a little reluctant to give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because so many hon. Members wish to speak. It is unfair of hon. Members to make interventions such as that, which simply made a constituency plug, instead of making a positive contribution to the scale and nature of the debate.
The House will recall that we envisage a submarine fleet of about 16 boats, about three quarters of which will be nuclear powered. We are evaluating designs for a new class of nuclear-powered submarines—based on the Trafalgar but incorporating the latest enhancements in combat systems. The last of the current Trafalgar boats, HMS Triumph, is due to enter service this year. A new class of conventional submarines, the Upholder, is also being introduced to replace the Oberon class. The first, HMS Upholder, is already in service, to be joined soon by HMS Unseen; two further vessels are under construction.
As the Army reduces in size over the coming years, we will be phasing out older equipment wherever possible, and introducing a higher proportion of newer and more capable systems.
In June, I announced that our two remaining regiments of aging Chieftain tanks will be re-equipped with Challenger 2. The Challenger Is will be the subject of an extensive upgrade, including the fitting of a new, more powerful gun. Within four years every armoured infantry battalion will be equipped with the Warrior fighting vehicle which proved so capable in the Gulf. We will be providing three artillery regiments with the multiple launch rocket system and all other front-line self-propelled artillery units will be given the AS90 155mm howitzer which will provide a 30 per cent. improvement in range.
Short-range air defence will be enhanced by the introduction of the Starstreak high-velocity missile. Starstreak's laser guidance system should make it almost invulnerable to counter-measures. In addition, the new Rapier field standard C will provide the capability to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Both of these systems are nearing the end of development.
The Army's anti-tank capability will be further enhanced towards the end of the decade when we plan to introduce a dedicated attack helicopter to replace Lynx in the anti-armour role.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I appreciate that the Ministry of Defence has been thinking for the past 10 years about a dedicated attack helicopter. The Lynx is doing its stuff, but it is a soft-skinned utility vehicle with strap-on Missiles, so if it had come up against heavy fire in the Gulf it might not have performed as successfully as it did. Would my right hon. Friend consider buying an off-the-shelf helicopter such as the Apache from McDonnell Douglas as one of the options? Otherwise, how are we to fulfil our commitment to the new NATO rapid reaction corps, which Britain is meant to lead, without proper attack helicopters?

Mr. Clark: Yes, my hon. Friend is perfectly right. We expect to invite tenders for that requirement in the spring. I know what my hon. Friend means by off-the-shelf, but it would be perfectly proper to include, and I should like to see as part of the tender, suggestions for offset and for British industry to participate. I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend would share that view with his constituency interests.
The importance of support and logistic vehicles is another lesson learnt—or I should say re-learnt—in the Gulf. The DROPS load-carrying and transport system was available in time to deploy the first vehicles to the Gulf where they performed extremely well. Deliveries will continue over the next few years.
As the Defence Select Committee has observed, the effect of those plans is to create a "strikingly well-equipped Army". Indeed, we estimate that our plans for re-equipping 1st Armoured Division will increase its capability by some 25 per cent. by the middle of this decade and by more than one third by the year 2000. That makes it clear that our aim of smaller but better forces is taking shape.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clark: I am sorry, but I cannot give way to everyone. I think that the House has heard quite enough from my hon. Friend to last it a couple of hours, although that is entirely a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was aware of considerable anxiety in the House last night about the Army. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the distinction between the size of the Army and the identity of particular units. Of course, the size of the Army is a matter for Ministers to determine. But the identity of the units and how this was ordered was a matter for the Army to make recommendations on.
The fundamental point in considering the shape of the Army was that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He asked whether we could today, and as our plans develop, still mount the type of operation which we did so successfully in the Falklands and again in the Gulf. To me, that is the core of the way


in which the "Options for Change" exercise should be evaluated. I assure my right hon. Friend, as one who has been intimately associated with these changes as they have taken shape since their inception, that I have always had that very requirement in the forefront of my mind. I can say categorically that we could mount such an operation. I am entirely satisfied that we could do so now and in the future.
Of course, we cannot fight more than one high-intensity conflict simultaneously. That is something which only a superpower can do. The United Kingdom does not have the economic or the basic capability and could not do so without distorting our budgetary provision. But I am entirely satisfied that if we were challenged again in contexts such as my right hon. Friend identified, we could meet that challenge, we could fight, and we would win.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: While I accept that my right hon. Friend has dealt fully with the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) yesterday, may I put it to him that that is not the only key question. So much of the anxiety expressed in the House yesterday was about the Army's continuing commitments, as well as those which could erupt through conflagrations such as those which occurred in the Gulf and the Falklands.

Mr. Clark: That is perfectly true. Our peacetime commitments are another subject. We carry those commitments fully in our mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to them yesterday. The atmosphere is more gentle when fulfilling our peacetime commitments. They are matters which we can approach piecemeal. We can adjust and be flexible as they emerge. But the important factor is the crisis factor. Can we respond to a major crisis of the type identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion? That is the test of whether a defence policy is effective and working.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way'?

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clark: I am becoming reluctant to give way because we are eating deeply into the time for hon. Members' speeches. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has been subject to a great deal of inaccurate howitzer fire from old soldiers. Could he confirm that the military advice from those serving on the Army Board at present is that under "Options for Change" there will be an adequate number of infantry battalions to secure the commitment in Northern Ireland under foreseeable circumstances and that that could be done without overstretch and with an adequate period between unaccompanied tours?

Mr. Clark: That is the whole object of the way in which the structure has been reordered. I am entirely confident that we can.

Sir David Steel: I appreciate the Minister's courtesy. It must be difficult for him when he gives way so much. One point which was not mentioned in the Secretary of State's speech last night was the future commitment that the British Army may have to United Nations peacekeeping forces. I ask about that

because if, as we all hope, the middle east peace conference gets under way, the United Nations peacekeeping force could be on a far greater scale and have far more authority than before over a long period. Do we intend to make a contribution to that and, if so, will not our numbers need to be greater than is planned?

Mr. Clark: At this stage, that point is rather too hypothetical for me to give the right hon. Gentleman the type of detailed answer that he might wish. But we have always managed to contribute successfully in the past. I am satisfied that our general position of reserve will be such that we could contribute to such a force. The right hon. Gentleman looks far into the distance. Of course, if the scale of such a force were enlarged massively, we should have to consult our allies. It would be perfectly possible for all of us in combination to develop a new approach to the subject, which in many ways has much to be said for it.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend remember that since the end of the second world war we have usually been involved in low-intensity conflicts in which trained and efficient men are more important than smart weapons? Is it not likely that that will happen again?

Mr. Clark: Trained and efficient men are particularly important. I would not want my hon. Friends to feel that I reject in any way the historic value of ancient regiments and the cohesion, morale, pride and combat effectiveness that run with a great historic tradition. These days the trade-off is in allocating resources between the insistent demands of high technology and those of tradition. It is not an easy equation.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am introducing a note of levity if I remind him that Field Marshal Haig, in writing a paper on restructuring the British Army after the great war, wrote that we must always be careful to carry in our minds the importance in future of the horse. When it was in print he annotated in his own hand, "particularly the well-bred horse".

Sir John Stokes: As my right hon. Friend knows how much I admire his realism and patriotism, does he agree that there is a social dimension in reducing the number of men and women in our armed forces? Are they not the very fabric of the nation? We are doing that at the very time when we are enormously increasing expenditure, amounting to millions of pounds, on extra places at universities for students, some of whom will be taking half-baked courses.

Mr. Clark: I am delighted to have drawn an intervention from my hon. Friend, whom I hold in the highest esteem. I must, however, tell the House that I should prefer not to give way again.
In the RAF, the Tornado will remain our principal front-line aircraft, in the variety of roles for which it was designed, until well into the next century. It demonstrated impressive versatility in the Gulf in both low-level precision attack and high-quality day and night reconnaissance.
The performance of the Tornado is more than a reflection of the excellence of its design; it is also a tribute to the courage of its crews. I should like briefly to refer to the circumstances in which six Tornado aircraft and, sadly, five RAF aircrew were lost in combat operations.
Our investigations into the circumstances have been completed. These made the best use of all the available evidence, including an inspection of the crash site where this was possible. In three of the cases it has been concluded that the aircraft were shot down by enemy surface-to-air missiles. In the fourth case, the aircraft was lost owing to damage caused by the premature detonation of its own weapons. Conclusions on the cause of the loss in the remaining two cases, where inspection of the crash site was not possible, could not be reached; the circumstances of these losses remain undetermined. I have today placed in the Library of the House a full summary of the results of the investigations.
The number of aircraft lost was very small compared with the overall scale of the air campaign against Iraq, but that cannot lessen the loss. In some ways it makes it more particular and painful for the families of the five airmen who were killed. I know that the House would wish me to extend its deepest sympathy to those families and to express its admiration and respect for the courage and fortitude shown by those who survived the loss of their aircraft and endured captivity.
The centre-piece of the future Air Force equipment programme is the European fighter aircraft. Despite the changes which we have seen in the Soviet Union and the countries of the former Warsaw pact, there will be a continued need to ensure the air defence of the United Kingdom and of British forces wherever they may be. EFA is a multi-role, all-weather fighter able to provide air defence of land or maritime targets, offensive support and reconnaissance in a hostile electronic warfare environment. The development programme is going well and we expect the aircraft to enter service with the RAF at the end of the present decade.
The Gulf clearly demonstrated the value of precision-guided munitions as a means of achieving high rates of success against multiple targets and with fewer aircraft. We are now examining the best balance between "smart" and "dumb" bombs and intend to increase the proportion of laser-guided bombs in our arsenal.
We are also considering the purchase of other air-launched stand-off weapons. Such a weapon would not only increase the effectiveness of our post-"Options" forces, but increase the survivability of aircraft. We have now received the tenders for a new generation of advanced short-range air-to-air missiles for the RAF and are evaluating them with a view to reaching a decision in the spring of next year.
The threats to peace and security are likely to be less predictable and, perhaps, more diverse in their scale, nature and origin than was the case only a few years ago. Amphibious forces, by virtue of their inherent flexibility, are likely to be of increasing utility in peace, crisis and conflict. They are an example of precisely the kind of flexible, mobile and highly skilled forces which we envisaged when my right hon. Friend made his initial statement on "Options for Change" last year. They are ideally suited to NATO's emerging concept of reaction forces and they are essential in meeting any national or multinational out-of-area commitments.
Amphibious forces can sail early in a crisis, quietly or with much fanfare, depending on the message we wish to send. They can stay at sea complete with their own integral

logistic support for extended periods and then advance or withdraw without violating frontiers or ceding ground. They can raid or land in strength on a potentially hostile shore and at a place and time of our choosing—quite independent of ports, harbours or airfields. There is no other means of providing such a variety of operational choices.
We will, therefore, replace the command and assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and I expect to award the contract for project definition of the replacement vessel next month. We will also be procuring the aviation support ship, which will provide a vital platform for helicopter operations. Again, I hope to make an announcement by early next year.
I turn now to the subject which I regard as being of primary importance—a view which I know is widely shared on both sides of the House: defence research and development. The experience of the Gulf conflict with its demonstration of the impact of very high technology has thrown this subject into sharp relief. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to advances which have made the gap between Alamein and the Gulf as great as the gap between Waterloo and Alamein.
To retain credible armed forces it is essential that we maintain a viable and productive research and development programme. However, the Gulf demonstrated the value of high technology, not only to the coalition forces, but to any future adversaries. If the standard of defence research is not preserved, we shall lose the technological edge that proved then to be so vital.
So although the reduction in the threat allows us to reduce our forces, we also need to retain the capacity to reconstitute our defences in both quantity and quality should the international situation deteriorate. That requires a technological base derived from civil as well as defence activities in industry and sufficiently strong to permit rapid exploitation of state-of-the art technology.
I see an expanding role for collaboration in research with the civil sector. Whereas in the past military needs have usually driven research at the leading edge, in some areas the main impetus is now coming from the demands of the civil commercial market. In the field of electronics, there is an increasing overlap between military and civil equipment uses. I see our making increasing use of commercial technology wherever this is possible.
I am also examining whether we should be researching new technologies and demonstrating them, while not automatically taking them to the expense and the delays inherent in full development, as we have tended to do hitherto.
I recognise that the past few months have been difficult for United Kingdom defence contractors and I take this opportunity to thank them for their forbearance. Now that the future pattern is becoming clear, I have written to the chairmen of some of our largest defence contractors asking for their views on how we might improve communications between MOD and industry. I am very grateful for their many thoughtful replies to which I am now giving careful study.
The Government continue to support defence exports where they are consistent with national defence and pose no threat to human rights in the customer countries. And with a reduced United Kingdom defence budget, exports will become increasingly important to our defence industry, upon which we continue to depend for the bulk of our defence needs. Sales of defence equipment, if


handled responsibly, can contribute to regional stability overseas as well as supporting jobs at home. The United Kingdom has always taken a responsible approach to this issue and encouraged other countries to do likewise.
During the course of my speech I have been amazed by the docility with which the Labour party has received my remarks.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Clark: I shall not give way. I understand that Labour Members are behaving themselves.
I was here yesterday and I listened to the contributions from the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and to most of the debate. The speeches from the Opposition provide a most extraordinary spectacle as they are a caricature of what happens to a party and of the state it gets into when it does not have a policy. No unit can be identified for amalgamation or restructuring, no depot can be designated for closure and no system or order can be varied in size without the Labour party throwing up its hands in horror and great gouts of crocodile tears appearing.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman had sought to intervene earlier I should have been delighted to give way, but I will not do so now.
The Labour party must decide on one question. Does it admit that some restructuring of our forces is necessary, or does it believe that the present condition is exactly as it should be? If there is to be any new structuring, what form does the Labour party believe it should take if it does not like the existing structure?
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) said that we should have more SSNs, but his Front-Bench spokesmen have said that we should have no SSNs and that we should use conventional forces. All the Labour party's thinking is motivated by a degree of synthetic indignation which presupposes that Brezhnev is still alive. I do not doubt that a number of Opposition Members—they are not in their places now—wish that he still were.
How anyone can endorse the Labour party's attitude by going into the same Lobby tonight defies belief. We are the only party that can be entrusted with the defence of the realm—we always have been and we always will be.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I listened with great interest to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and I enjoyed his speech, as I always do. I also listened with great interest to the ministerial speeches yesterday and I am sorry that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is not present. When he wound up the debate the hon. Gentleman made some interesting points—he pulled them out like rabbits from a poacher's bag and perhaps that is apt for that hon. Gentleman.
We welcome the statement on low flying, which will be of immense relief to people in the areas affected. However, I wish that the Ministry of Defence would look again at the practice of flying as low as 100 ft in certain areas. We are the only country to do so as Germany and America have stopped the practice. There is a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that such flying was not that effective when

used in the Gulf war. I look forward with great interest to learn what is in the report as I am sure that such flying was not as effective as the Government have pretended.
The announcement on HMS Endurance was a typical example of the Government's style of crisis management. Obviously that announcement will cover the immediate future, but I am sure that everyone would be much happier if a more measured decision was made soon. The exposition on the citizens charter given by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement was most illuminating, especially his statement:
Our principal response to the charter will be to continue to provide a formidable defence of our country."—[Official Report, 14 October 1991, Vol. 196, c. 117.]
I remember that when the Prime Minister introduced the citizens charter he spoke about penalties being imposed on governmental bodies that could not fulfil their obligations or come up to scratch. I believe that he intended to fine British Rail if the trains ran a little late. Tonight I look forward to learning from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about the penalty system that will be adopted for the MOD.
The ministerial speeches of yesterday and today are extremely sad given that the Government have been running the defence of the country for the past 12 years. Suddenly, just before election time, they come up with promises of procurement decisions which will give false hope to many people in certain parts of the country that jobs will be provided. We have yet to see those promises carried through. If the Government's procurement policy of the past 12 years is extended in the future, I would not view those promises with any great confidence if I lived in the areas to be affected.

Mr. Cecil Franks: rose——

Mr. Rogers: I will not give way, especially as Mr. Deputy Speaker has already spoken about a time limit on speeches. The hon. Gentleman rose to his feet about 10 times yesterday; probably he was instructed by the Whips to do so. However, I will give way to him a little later.
When Conservative Members bleat about the loss of jobs and Labour party policy in that respect they should look at their record of the past 12 years. It is a bit much for the party of unemployment to start talking about job losses as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement did yesterday. In the past 12 years the Conservative party has been responsible for the loss of at least 200,000 jobs in the defence industry and it is about to make 66,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen redundant. However, Conservative Members still criticise and carp about the Labour party policy of so-called "job losses".
Yesterday the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement brought back to mind the many days we spent together in Committee on the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill. Last winter the Government privatised the production of atomic weapons, but, next year, when the Labour party gets into power, we will rectify the effects of that obnoxious Bill.
One of the things that the Secretary of State mentioned yesterday was the export of arms to Iraq. The Secretary of State and his Ministers hypocritically sought to derive some credit for the recent work of the United Nations agency in uncovering Saddam Hussein's arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They sought to derive such credit again today during Defence Question Time. When the Secretary of State was questioned by me


yesterday, and when he was questioned by other colleagues today, he forgot to say anything about the role of British companies and the Government in the export of arms and potentially lethal equipment to Saddam Hussein in contravention of the United Nations resolutions on the export of arms to sensitive areas. Today the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that the MOD would study critically how and where arms are exported. However, if the Government's record continues to follow that of the past 12 years, the Minister of State's comments today are not worth a fig.
In 1985 the then Foreign Secretary gave a policy statement that was published. He said that the United Kingdom
has been strictly impartial in the conflict between Iran and Iraq and has refused to allow the supply of lethal defence equipment to either side".
Just before the recess I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him to put the record straight. My questions were necessary in view of replies to questions that I had asked well before the Gulf conflict, following the exploitation of the Kurds in northern Iraq. When I asked questions of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister's Office about the export of arms to the area, they denied that any such exports had taken place.
In the Army debate on 1 July 1991 I asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces
to confirm his continual statements to me over the past two years that there were no arms sales to Iraq.
The Minister replied:
There were certainly no arms sales to Iraq from British firms. That is what I have always said and I still confirm that absolutely".—[Official Report, 1 July 1991: Vol. 194, c. 55.]
Although I had reason to doubt the veracity of the answers that Ministers had given to me, I had to accept them as the truth. After all, though members of the Tory party, they were Ministers of the Crown.
Imagine the shock when we saw the list that was submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry only a week or so after the Minister's statement. The list of materials exported to Iraq included armoured vehicle spares, armoured vehicles, artillery fire control equipment, fast assault craft, laser rangefinders and mortar-locating radar.
One must draw the conclusion that Ministers did not know what was going on in their Departments, that they knew but were not prepared to tell, that they were telling lies or that the Government do not define such equipment as lethal. I found it all strange, especially following the visit of the Prime Minister in which he projected himself as a war leader. At the Tory party conference he spoke of the way in which he got out of his helicopter and talked to the troops. I wonder whether he asked them on that occasion how they felt about the Iraqis using equipment supplied by British firms with the approval of the British Government. Did he ask if they were happy to face those weapons? Having written to the Prime Minister on the subject, he has not given me an answer.
Sir Colin Chandler, then head of the Ministry of Defence export services organisation, said at the 1986 British Army equipment exhibition that there was no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. When one examines the

equipment that was sent to Iraq, the Government having been involved in those exports, it is clear that questions remain to be answered and that an inquiry must be set up.
The only response has come from the chairman of the Tory party, the custodian of the truth, the successor to Mr. Jeffrey Archer. The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
I do not honestly think there is as much public interest as you might suppose in Labour muck-raking.
I asked him to tell me, if that was the case, who created the muck in the first place. The truth is that it was created on the Government Benches, in view of their involvement in this sordid business. The Government have systematically turned their backs on the matter and looked with a blind eye at arms exports to an area and countries circumscribed by the United Nations. It was odd how during the Gulf war the Government invoked United Nations resolutions in justification of the Gulf action, even though for a number of years they had been exporting arms in contravention of other resolutions.
The chickens came home to roost for the Government last August, with British made weapons guided by British made radar being pointed at British troops. In addition, we had paid for the weapons. Saddam Hussein did not pay for them, for when he reneged on his payments, the British Government, of which the present Prime Minister was a member, picked up the tab. In August 1983 the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), announced that the Export Credits Guarantee Department was extending substantial loans to Iraq. When Iraq reneged on those loans, the British taxpayer picked up the bill.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman has made some poisonous charges but they have been couched in such general terms that he owes it to the House to be specific. What weapons is he talking about, on what contract did the Iraqis default and what is his evidence for saying that the British taxpayer picked up the bill?

Mr. Rogers: The evidence is clear from the actions of the ECGD, which guaranteed the loans that the British Government gave to Saddam Hussein. Those were the extensions of credit, and when he did not pay the bill——

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): For what?

Mr. Rogers: For weapons.

Mr. King: What weapons?

Mr. Rogers: The weapons that were listed—[Interruption.] It is clear that Conservative Members are squirming and do not like what they are hearing. The list was submitted to the Select Committee, as I explained—[Interruption.]—and in addition to the items I mentioned, it included tank spares, Land Rovers, radar equipment, Cymbeline battlefield equipment, control and weather systems, munitions, propellants and even propellant for the big gun. All of that was exported with the complicity of people involved in the British defence industry.
I leave the issue there. I have dealt with it at some length in view of the hypocritical stance of the Government in recent days.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of exports to Iraq, may I ask if he is aware that the total cost of exports underwritten by the


British Government in the 10 years before the Gulf conflict was £1 billion and that the Government have so far refused to reveal how much of that they have had to pay because of non-payment by Iraq? That equipment was used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction used against the Kurdish people in 1988.

Mr. Rogers: The Government have refused to provide details of the annual value of arms sales to Iraq, despite having given similar figures for Malaysia. It is all very well for Ministers to demand specifics from my hon. Friends and I, but we are faced with the most secretive Government we have ever had. Whenever we table questions or otherwise try to get information, they wrap themselves in the Union Jack and say that to give the facts would be against the national interest or that it is commercial and confidential.

Mr. Churchill: rose——

Mr. Rogers: I close my remarks on the Iraq issue there because I want to get on and I have put on record our views about the hypocrisy of the Government towards the whole matter.
A consistent complaint over the years has been about the ineptitude of the Government's management of defence procurement. In the early to mid-80s the Tory conference darling, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—was appointed Secretary of State for Defence, and Tory Members who were here at the time welcomed him with enthusiasm as the smart business man who would reform the Ministry of Defence. They said that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead—[Interruption.] I meant to refer not to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) but to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman got that wrong, just like he has got all his other facts wrong.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman should stop twittering. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead has contributed a damn sight more towards the security of this country than the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) will ever do.
It was thought that the right hon. Member for Henley would turn out to be the smart business man who would reform the Ministry of Defence. He was to be the hatchet-wielder, the butcher who would cut up the fat cats of the defence industry—those members of the Conservative party who, in true Tory tradition, had been ripping off the taxpayers for years—but they did not realise how good a hatchet-wielder he would turn out to be. His reforms may have had short-term benefits, but they created as many problems as they solved. The major project statement published by the Government leads us to believe that, despite the so-called reforms in defence procurement, many programmes are still subject to cost overruns and time slippage.
The National Audit Office has discovered that seven major projects show a variation in projected spend well in excess of 20 per cent. in real terms. In the case of 19 out of 33 projects, there had been a significant time slippage— well over two years. The so-called tougher contract conditions were supposed to fall on the contractor and not on the taxpayer, but, in practice, the taxpayer is still

incurring considerable extra cost. More important, our armed forces are having to wait for up-to-date equipment, and having to extend the life of out-of-date material.
Many of the slippages occur as a result of the change in specification made by the MOD because of the lack of skilled personnel to prepare estimates. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of State say today that the Gulf war had brought the importance of research into sharp focus. However, although I then waited to hear what the Minister was going to do about the matter, I still have not heard anything other than that it is in sharp focus.
I understand why the Government are not coming up with the proposals. In recent years, savage and substantial cuts have been made in defence research and development. Anything that the Government do over the next 10 years will probably not be sufficient to rectify the wrongs that have been perpetrated.
The Government may talk about research and development that is defence-oriented, or carried out within specific Departments. The worst damage that is being done to scientific and other research, however, is being caused by the Government's attacks on universities and the public education system. If scientists are not emerging from the universities, it is no good our having all these grandiose defence establishments: there will be no scientists ready, able and willing to work in them.
The Government's management of high-risk defence programmes still leaves much to be desired. That is typified by the recent debacle of the type 23 frigate programme. As I have said, the problem is compounded by misguided Government cuts. [Interruption.] It is no use the Minister muttering; it is he who has been making those cuts. The withdrawal of resources following the reorganisation of the defence and research establishments means that only very limited technological support is available to the MOD from the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment.
The MOD is increasingly having to rely on technical design advice from the prime contractors. That is not the best position for a Department that is going to purchase from those same people, and for the Government to be so lax and inept in its management of programmes and specifications certainly does not set a good precedent for industry.

Mr. Franks: The hon. Gentleman has made great play of what he terms the Government's secrecy, and of cuts that have been made. Perhaps I can help him by asking him to remove the veil of secrecy that surrounds the Labour party's policies. Perhaps he will not be secretive, but will tell the House what his party, if it were in government, would propose to do about the fourth Trident submarine. Perhaps following the comments made last night by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) he will also tell us what his party proposes to do about the SSN submarines—that is, strategic submarine nuclear—that are being built.

Mr. Rogers: I anticipated that question: as the Minister of State said earlier, the hon. Gentleman has a strong constituency interest in the matter.
Labour does not believe that a fourth Trident boat is necessary. If, however, an order for one were placed before a general election, an incoming Labour Government would have to examine the contract—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. The hon. Gentleman asked a question to which they must want to know the


answer, but they have not the courtesy to listen. An incoming Labour Government would have to examine the contract, and the cancellation charges associated with it, before making a decision.

Mr. Franks: What about the SSN submarines?

Mr. Rogers: I want to make my own speech.
Yesterday, Conservative Members spent a good deal of time criticising Labour's defence policy—

Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that he would allow me to intervene later. When I sought to do so, he did not honour his word. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) did exactly the same. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that he would reply to me, but he has not replied to my question about the SSN submarines.
If Opposition Members do not honour their words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it incumbent on me to continue to call them "honourable Members"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is a point of protest; it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Rogers: Yesterday, Conservative Members spent a good deal of time—[HON MEMBERS: "What about the SSNs?"]

Mr. John McWilliam: Before my hon. Friend responds to the Conservative chants of "SSNs", should he not ask Conservative Members to tell the House openly about the state of the current SSNs?

Mr. Rogers: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, I do not intend to go down that road now.
We understand why the Conservative party does not want to concentrate on its estimates. We understand why Conservative Members continually try to divert the discussion to the subject of our policies. They bleat about the job losses that would result if a Labour Government were elected—but this is the party that uses unemployment as an economic tool; a party that believes that, regardless of human misery, that is all that unemployment means. [Interruption.] The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary—I believe that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) is his PPS; he is all dressed up—is clearly intent on preventing the debate from proceeding. If he does not mind, however, I shall continue to speak over the racket that he is making.
Given that the MOD has reduced the number of regular service personnel by 6 per cent. since 1985, and has cut the number of civilian employees by 19 per cent. over the same period, it is pretty ripe for Conservative Members to talk about job losses. According to the Government's records, there have been substantial losses in British defence firms since January 1990.
Yesterday, Opposition Members were pleased to hear about the Scottish Office proposals to set up a defence industries initiative to work with companies and communities affected by reductions in demand for defence products. It was heartening to learn from a press release that the Scottish Office is to build into that initiative our proposals for a defence industry diversification agency. I am glad that the Tories are picking up our policies.

Defence industry job losses in Scotland are substantial, and we cannot wait until next summer to put them right. If the Tories are prepared to do that, we applaud their efforts.
One of the issues presented to the Select Committee was the use of the Royal Engineers to carry out mine clearance in the Gulf on behalf of a private company; that was dealt with at some length. Questions need to be answered. Perhaps, for instance, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be able to tell us more precisely what are the terms of the contract, why the British soldiers could not have dealt with it themselves, and how much profit the private company is making—especially as it had received a Government handout of hundreds of millions of pounds a little earlier. More importantly, can he tell us whether, should there be an accident, soldiers would receive civilian compensation or the lower rates of service compensation? Moreover, if service men refuse to work for a private company, will that be allowed?
One aspect that very much concerns the Opposition is the Ministry of Defence's attitude towards the acquisition and holding of land for training purposes. Last July the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said—I quote him, in part—that
The Ministry of Defence is always considering areas throughout the United Kingdom, to increase the number of training grounds. We still do not feel … that we have enough training areas and we should like to extend them if the opportunity arises. Scotland is certainly an area that we have been considering, for example, when estates are up for sale.
I understand that the Nugent committee made fairly strong recommendations for the release of a great deal of defence land. I accept that since then some of that land has been released, but much more could have been released. Much of the land that has been released is on the urban fringes rather than in areas of outstanding natural beauty in Scotland, Wales and certain parts of England. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will look critically at its land holdings.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would it not be useful if the Government set up a new committee similar to the Nugent committee to carry out a full review of its defence land holdings? The Nugent committee made recommendations about many areas, such as Lulworth cove. It said that the defence use could be substantially reduced and that people could enjoy those areas instead of having to be used as military training grounds.

Mr. Rogers: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no reason why that land should not be released. I applaud what has happened at, for example, Castlemartin. The public are allowed on to the tank training area when it is not being used by German Panzers. I presume that the German Panzers will return home and that Castlemartin may become redundant for tank training purposes. The Ministry of Defence may therefore not need to retain that land.
Last week I listened to the Prime Minister's speech at the Tory party conference. [Interruption.] I must confess that I did not want to do so, but the rugby on the other channel was so bad that I thought that, of the two horror stories, watching the Prime Minister was probably the best. What struck me was the Prime Minister's steely determination to put the country right, to redress the ills of our society. However, as I watched him it occurred to me that he seemed to have forgotten that his Government are the authors of all our ills and woes. The Prime Minister


wants to rectify the ills that he has created. For the past 12 years he has been part of the Government. At one time he lived in No. 11 Downing street.
At Blackpool the Prime Minister indulged in a de-Thatcherisation exercise. He said that for the last 12 years he had had nothing to do with those policies, that he never put his hand up in favour of them, and that now he wants nothing to do with them. Neither the Prime Minister, nor the Government, nor the Ministry of Defence can escape their past. In the run-up to an election it is no good pretending that they are starting with a nice clean sheet and that they will write the future of our defence industry and our Armed Forces on that sheet. I had exactly the same feeling when the Secretary of State for Defence spoke in the debate. Yesterday he made great play of the expression—as did the Minister of State for Defence Procurement today and as the Secretary of State did on the radio this morning—"smaller and better" forces. No one disputes that our armed forces will be smaller. Conservative Members are going to object to that in the Lobby. Whether our armed forces will be better because they will have better equipment remains to be seen.
The Secretary of State said that the Army has the right to be sceptical. The Army certainly has every right to be sceptical. It also has every reason to be sceptical. This Government's defence procurement record does not instil confidence in anyone. As the Secretary of State said on the radio this morning, the equipment that the British Army had in Germany last year meant that it could not go into action in the Gulf without expensive, extensive and urgent up-dating, combined with the cannibalising of tanks in order to get them moving to go to the Gulf.
Last year Opposition Members stated these truths. The Government denied that this was so. However, the truth has now come out. The Government have run out of places to hide and this morning the Secretary of State had to confess. The Government will not be around long enough to do much more damage to our defence industries. Next year, when we win the election, we shall put right the wrongs that they have created for our defence industry over the last 10 years.

Sir David Price: In the interests of the many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall not attempt to answer the election speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am one of a rapidly diminishing number of right hon. and hon. Members who belong to a generation who had to pay a very heavy price in blood for the continuous neglect of defence in this country throughout the 1920s and the larger part of the 1930s. We came out of the second world war and went back to civilian life determined that neither we nor subsequent generations should forget that. That is why I am not one to press our Government to declare an immediate peace dividend because of the dramatic changes that have taken place in eastern Europe and that are continuing to take place in the Soviet Union. For me, the better securing of peace which results from these changes is in itself a more than sufficient dividend for our proper investment in defence. In any case, the future balance of power in the world is difficult to forecast at this precise moment. It is probably always difficult to forecast, but it

is particularly difficult now. Therefore, common prudence tells us not to be in too much of a hurry to count our peace chickens before they are hatched. Let us never forget the old saying:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
I trust that all hon. Members agree that the size and the mix of our armed forces must at any time be related to the likely threats against which we must protect ourselves and to any additional duties which might reasonably fall to our armed forces to fulfil. I have two such duties in mind. The first was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel): to support a United Nations peacekeeping initiative. I think that that duty is likely to increase. The second duty is to respond to any major international disaster. I pleaded at the beginning of the Gulf conflict that we should send more help to Jordan for that very purpose.
In the changed circumstances of 1991, it is not easy to define those threats with any precision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a brave effort to do that in his White Paper. However, it is worth reminding ourselves, as several hon. Members did yesterday, that the two major conflicts in which our armed forces have been involved during the past 10 years were both outside the NATO area and that neither involved those potential enemies against whom our defences have been principally deployed—the Warsaw pact countries. Nor do I believe that the recovery of the Falkland Islands from Argentina or the recovery of Kuwait from the Iraqis had been the subject of major military contingency planning in the years preceding them.
The fact that both operations were carried out successfully does great credit to our armed forces but rather less to our military foresight. Therefore, I commend to the House the statement in paragraph 251 of the White Paper which says:
Nothing could have demonstrated more clearly the need … to maintain effective forces, who train realistically, are well supported, well manned and well motivated. Our decision to maintain balanced forces, able to meet the unexpected with a skilful and effective response has been completely justified.
It goes without saying that this admirable statement of purpose can be fulfilled only by the appropriate commitment of sufficient resources. I trust that so far the House agrees with me. Therefore, the outstanding question before us is whether the White Paper proposals achieve that or, to the extent that they do not, whether that can be rectified.
It has been suggested that the changes have been Treasury led and have largely Treasury objectives. On a number of occasions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured us that that is not the case and I invite the House to accept those assurances. However, there are areas of defence that worry some hon. Members. Three areas worry me and I have experience in them all. First, I am concerned about the Merchant Navy. As the House knows, I have always involved myself in the affairs of the Merchant Navy and I declare every form of personal interest, including a constituency one. In paragraph 440 of the White Paper my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells us, in relation to the Gulf operation:
We were able to meet all our requirements on this occasion by commercial charter, but in a future operation we might need to requisition vessels.
The key sentence says:
The availability of British-owned and flagged vessels is therefore of continuing importance.


As the House knows, the number of British-flagged vessels is declining. I know that this matter involves more than the Ministry of Defence, but I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to tell us what they intend to do about it.
My second concern is the mix in the Territorial Army. I think that the House will agree that as we reduce the numbers in the regular Army the role of the TA becomes more important as does the mix of skills within it. I have been approached by people involved in the TA in Wessex, my part of the country. They have asked me to draw the House's attention to two concerns. First, their understanding is that the establishment of the TA Royal Army Medical Corps is to be reduced by half. The House would wish to know the logic behind that. If my thesis is correct, the TA exists to furnish in war those parts of the regular Army that are not needed in peacetime soldiering to the same extent as in a military operation. It seems that the TA medical service is a classic candidate for that role. To reduce its numbers drastically must be damaging to the national interest, both military and civilian, apart from any possible disaster roles in which it may become involved.
The second concern is about the transport units in the TA. The House will recall that the RAMC and the Royal Corps of Transport contributed more than an arithmetical proportion to the Gulf operation and they did so extremely well. Therefore, in all our talks we must remember the role of the medics and the drivers. I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me.
My third concern deals with the infantry, which has occupied much of the House's time. I know the strong feeling that we all have about our county regiments. In Treasury terms the infantry is always a cheap option. However, the late Field Marshal Montgomery said that the infantry is
the central core of the fighting machine, on which all else depends.
My figures suggest that the cost of an infantry battalion per year is between £10 million and £12 million. To add six infantry battalions to the 38 that my right hon. Friend wants would cost between £60 million and £70 million extra. If we allow a little for overheads and a few more people at brigade, we could settle for a figure of £75 million to £80 million. Much of the aggro about great regiments going would, to coin a phrase, dissolve at a stroke. As a reference point for the House, my research suggests that one Challenger 2 tank costs about £4 million and one Tornado aircraft costs about £25 million. So, every time a Tornado crashes in training, it costs the equivalent of two infantry battalions. My right hon. Friend could afford to give a little on the matter of the infantry battalions without adding significantly to his expenditure. If in the future we were short of infantry, my right hon. Friend would find it difficult to go to the supermarket and buy a do-it-yourself infantry battalion because they do not come off the shelf like that. It does not involve great cost to keep a few extra battalions.
As my right hon. Friends knows, I am not happy about the way in which he has treated the Foot Guards. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends want to develop that if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend has not satisfied me on the necessity of that treatment. I am in a generous mood and I am not standing at the next election. To use an old phrase, I am almost

demob happy. If my right hon. Friend cuts us down in the way that he intends, please cut down public duties equivalently. It would add enormously to the distortion of our military duties and would involve virtually nothing but public duties if they are to be retained at the present level. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond to my plea to cut public duties, but I fear that it will mean that when Christopher Robin goes to the palace with Alice he may be disappointed, as will the Japanese tourists. However, they will have no grounds for complaint because they will know that a King will have decreed it.

Mr. Denis Healey: I belong to the same dwindling band as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) who fought in the last war because of the follies of pre-war Governments and I share many, but not all, of the views that he has just expressed. I am also demob happy and it is an agreeable feeling.
What depresses me about the Government's handling of the debate is that we have little more information now than we were given in June last year about the nature of the commitments that the Government expect us to have to face in the future and how the forces that they have decided to maintain are related to those commitments. For example, we have no idea why the Government have chosen to cut the Army far more than the Navy or why, within the Navy, they have decided to cut the submarine force far more than the surface fleet. Both those decisions are profoundly mistaken but we have had no excuse for them.
There has been some consensus in the House, but I fear it is at a very obvious level. None of us believes that there is a significant danger of war or of an attack on Europe from the east, and if such a danger arose we would have several years to prepare for it. That is one of the bases on which the Secretary of State has founded his decisions.
Secondly, we all recognise that the end of the cold war has led to an explosion of nationalism, which has created immense instability in what was once the Soviet empire of eastern Europe and in what was once the Soviet Union. We should have been well prepared for that because the end of the British, French and Dutch empires produced the same instability in the third world, and that instability has lasted from 1945 to this day. We know that by the terms of its treaty NATO is forbidden directly to act in those areas of instability, although its members are free to do so if they wish, as they mostly decided they would when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
It is not easy to decide when it is wise to commit British forces to such an enterprise. I believe that the Government were right not to support calls for military intervention in Yugoslavia from people who would not provide troops. The time might come when some police force might play a role, but certainly not now.
There may now be second thoughts, even on the Conservative Benches, about the wisdom of intervening to protect the Kurds in Iraq, as we have found that the Kurds were recently attacked simultaneously inside Iraq by aircraft from our Turkish NATO ally and by Saddam Hussein's armed forces. I found it a little shaming that the only European Government to comment on the Turkish action were the German Government.
Our main task, surely, if we all agree with what I have said so far, is to try to prevent the existing instability,


which is much more widespread than before the end of the cold war, from leading to a hot war. I suggest that this is primarily a task not for western armed forces but for action in other fields. We must begin to define security much more widely than we have been used to during the cold war. With respect to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) pointed out, will sell arms to anyone who has money to offer, and many who have no money to offer, we must control the trade in arms with areas of instability. It is worth reminding ourselves that the big five powers—Russia and the main western powers— spent $60 billion this year on defeating a threat that was created entirely by their own arms exports, to which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out, we contributed. How much wiser it would have been, for our own security, to have spent that money on reducing the economic causes of instability.
I know that it will be difficult to reach agreement on how to control the arms trade, but while agreement is being reached there is an overwhelming case for freezing all arms exports to areas of instability, notably to the middle east. At one time, the American Administration seemed to be toying with that, but they have now dropped it.
We also face new problems, the full range of which we did not understand until after the Gulf war, in banning exports of dual technology—technology that can be used for civilian and military purposes. Before the Gulf war, few western countries, including our own, were not involved in supplying Saddam Hussein with the technologies that enabled him almost to produce nuclear weapons.
If we want to control the trade in arms, we must also control the production of arms, otherwise countries without their own arms industries could be at the mercy of countries that have substantial arms industries, as Croatia is now at the mercy of Serbia. That is best done by tying economic aid to cuts in military budgets. That has been proposed by Mr. Camdessus, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and I desperately hope that the Government will support that idea not only for the third world but for the Soviet Union. If I understood the Minister, he was rather suggesting that they had some sympathy with that idea.
Thirdly, we must try to cut existing forces not only in the third world—they would never accept that—but in the rest of the world as well. President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev have set a useful example by the initiatives they have taken in the past few weeks. The United Nations must play the central role in all this enterprise, and the work of the special committee of the Security Council in Iraq recently showed how valuable that role can be. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) suggested, it must also develop machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes, covering the rights of minorities and dangers of untenable frontiers such as those in the middle east that affect Palestine and the Kurds. We must regenerate the Military Staff Committee to provide a stand-by police force to monitor such agreements.
But the point that seems to have been missed in this debate is that economic breakdown in eastern Europe, the ex-Soviet Union and the third world could vastly increase political instability and lead to military dictatorships and wars of aggression, especially in eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union. Western Europe has a clear interest and

moral duty in offering aid at least to the central European countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary on the scale of the Marshall plan—a smaller scale, incidentally, than the cost of the Gulf war—and in offering them the prospect of joining the Community, as they all wish. The sooner European Free Trade Association countries join the Community the better, because they will increase, rather than drain, the Community's economic strength.
A big problem arises that has not been discussed by Ministers: what will the security system be for countries in the old communist empire? The east European countries, and some of the Soviet republics, would like to join NATO. Indeed, Mr. Gorbachev suggested that the Soviet Union might join NATO. I do not think that we should dismiss those ideas as idle ravings, because what has happened in the past few weeks has made that more possible, more difficult and more necessary. Yet the United States and Germany have already made such a proposal for the east European countries.
Everything in the world has changed, not so much because of the fall of the wall in Berlin but because of the failure of the Monty Python attempted coup in Moscow in August. The "Coup Klutz Clan" failed to carry out its objectives and as a result it destroyed the three pillars on which the Soviet state has rested for 70 years—the Communist party, the secret police and the Red Army.
The interesting thing which has happened during the past few weeks and which was responsible for President Bush's initiative is that none of the successor states to the Soviet Union now fears attack by NATO, but nearly all —except the Russian republic—fears attack by the Russian republic. In a remark of stupendous and historic folly, a few weeks ago Mr. Yeltsin suggested that, if the Soviet Union broke up, the Russian republic reserved the right to change the frontiers of other republics. Twenty per cent. of the Ukranians are Russian, as are 30 per cent. of those living in Kazakhstan. The result is that they want not only independence but their own armed forces and nuclear weapons.
Last week, the Ukraine announced that it proposed to produce an army of 420,000 men—far larger than any army in Europe. It already has on its territory 100 strategic nuclear warheads. Azerbaijan wants to produce a somewhat smaller army and is already appealing to Turkey and Iran to provide it with the necessary weapons. Kazakhstan has 200 strategic nuclear warheads on its territory. Just as the G7 decided yesterday in Bangkok to send a mission to discuss the economic co-operation of the Soviet republics with one another as an indispensable foundation for western economic aid, so NATO should be considering sending a mission to discuss the military implications of the end of the Soviet Union. I have reason to believe that quite a number of republics would welcome the dispatch of such a mission. Certainly, at the very least, we should make economic aid to the Soviet Union dependent on the creation of a military structure in the Soviet successor states which does not give the world the same cause to fear as President Bush's recent offer.
The economic and military future of the Soviet Union are of immense importance to us in Britain and, indeed, to the rest of the world. An economic cataclysm in the Soviet Union, which seems all too likely, could send millions of refugees across the Soviet frontiers into western Europe and the middle east. One need not discuss, of course, the horrifying possibility that individuals or groups in some of the countries that at present control Soviet nuclear


weapons may decide to sell them for money to other countries, particularly in the middle east. Already Soviet military nuclear scientists have been hired by Iraq and Iran. Incidentally, a large number have been hired by the United States, including the Soviet Union's main nuclear rocket specialist, Sagdee, who is now working at an American university.
It surprises me that none of those issues has been mentioned by the Government Front Bench.

Sir Patrick Duffy: The matter was mentioned yesterday.

Mr. Healey: There was just a mention of instability but there was no analysis of the way to deal with the consequences.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) spoke about it.

Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East mentioned that aspect—the only Member to do so, and he is on our side. If I am wrong, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) will correct me if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
President Bush has proposed unilateral nuclear arms cuts—an interesting example of the way in which unilateral arms cuts can be sensible in the right context. To make a theological fetish out of the contrast between unilateralism and multilateralism is as silly as talking in the European sphere about federalism and non-federalism. The real need is to look at what is happening on the ground and how it influences our interests.
No one can deny what I have said, nor that these events have turned the world upside down. The Government's failure to face these new problems is depressing. The United States and Germany have decided to join Japan in recognising that, in the next generation, economic strength will be a much more important influence in the world than military strength, yet in our country we plan to reduce our defence spending, which is higher as a percentage of gross domestic product than that of any of our allies, except the United States. We are planning to increase the gap in spending by cutting our forces to a level higher than any of our allies, except conceivably France—how far France will go has yet to be seen.
The Prime Minister should face this problem. It is not a problem for the Secretary of State for Defence, who boasted that his cuts were not Treasury driven. Why the hell not? Surely, when the British economy is tottering on the verge of collapse and our social and economic infrastructure desperately needs assistance, the Chancellor should say, "Justify your demand for these forces." The Foreign Secretary should not spend his time playing kindergarten games with his European colleagues in Brussels. Last week, there was a wonderful example when the German and French Foreign Ministers tried to go joyriding in the Dutch Foreign Minister's limousine after a meeting so that they could hold an independent press conference before the Community's official press conference. What a way to run a railroad when the world faces the sort of problems that we all agree exist!
The Foreign Secretary should start by considering some of the commitments by which the Ministry of Defence

justifies, quite reasonably, its force structure. Is it really sensible to retain our military commitments in Gibraltar, Cyprus, Belize and the Falklands when we are already getting rid of our commitment in Hong Kong? Surely the skill that the former Prime Minister showed with the former Foreign Secretary in selling the people of Hong Kong down the river to save us embarrassment could have been deployed on equally worthy causes in other ex-colonies.
This country's future will depend on our economic success relative to the success of those who compete with us. If we go on spending so much more of our smaller wealth and smaller research and development resources on defence rather than on civil expansion, we shall collapse in the face of the onslaught from our industrial competitors and we shall deserve to do so.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: It is a privilege to be called to take part in what is clearly a highly significant defence debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The right hon. Gentleman was clearly in a relaxed mood. His comments on controlling the arms trade, particularly in the context of the middle east, are worth careful consideration tomorrow in Hansard. Anyone who has studied that subject knows that we must make progress and that there are 101 problems.
I was amazed to find that as recently as April last year I had the chance to have an Adjournment debate on the upgrading of short-range nuclear missiles in West Germany. The then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office who replied maintained a straight bat. He said that it was important that we should go ahead with the deployment of those short-range missiles.
We have only to see what has happened in the intervening months to know how wholly transformed the defence scene has been in Europe. East Germany is now part of Germany and on our side. I suppose that, in theory, the captain of an East German destroyer used Warsaw pact codes one day and the next day got out of his locker the NATO signals codes to join up with the communications of his new colleagues.
I pay tribute to Ministers for keeping calm at the time of the coup. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there were calls from several luminaries saying that we should freeze the "Options for Change" exercise in the light of that coup. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was one. Lord Callaghan said something similar, and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and other exotic villages up there, Sir David Steel, said the same thing. We would have made a major mistake if we had overreacted in that way, especially bearing in mind that many of the changes on which we have concentrated in this debate will take up to four years to be completed. Thank heavens that we did not overreact. We would have looked stupid if we had had to change and then to change back again.
In the most recent defence debate in which I took part I called for a defence review. That has been my theme for several years. I remember John Nott's ill-fated exercise a long time ago for very different reasons. A sensible case can be made for examining our defence commitments and our resources, especially financial resources, to see how best to proceed. In the event, it was decided not to have a defence review. However, I must say that when I read the


"Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" I realised that we have had a defence review in this country in all but name.
The cold war came to an end two years ago. Rightly, we waited until the important NATO meeting in Brussels last April before going ahead with our own defence cuts. We did not react unilaterally. We took the trouble to find out what sort of force levels NATO contemplated for the future. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East wanted us to go further with the cuts. I think that we have the balance about right, although it is not an exact science. The right hon. Gentleman sensibly made the point that our cuts are not as deep as those of our European partners. It is right that they are not as deep. We have commitments such as Northern Ireland which are very expensive in terms of infantry battalions. I find myself supporting the Government for having gone as far as they have and for having not gone further. To be frank, they have gone to one extreme of the scale, but within the scale of what I believe is practical and sensible.
I was the adjutant of an infantry battalion when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East came up with his programme of defence cuts in 1968. My famous county regiment was one of those which was chopped and merged, and I well remember the trauma that resulted. It is demoralising for the officers, the men, the families and the counties. I understand the genuine feeling of tension in the British Army at present, which is well reflected by my colleagues who have spoken up on behalf of their counties and the proud regiments with which they or their relations have served.
Having made that point, I must say that the Government would have ducked their responsibilities if they had not cut the size of the Army. The British Army of the Rhine, in which I served happily for several years, is being reduced from 55,000 to 23,000. I served in Berlin at the time that the wall went up. To be frank, I saw more of the athletics tracks than of the rifle ranges, but that is another matter. The whole Berlin brigade will go.
We are losing our commitment in Hong Kong. 'Kith other officers of the Conservative parliamentary defence committee, I visited Gibraltar in 1985. We visited the Queen's Regiment, the resident battalion. We no longer have a resident battalion in Gibraltar. These are genuine cuts in infantry battalion requirements. The Ministry of Defence has little alternative but to make similar cuts in the number of battalions overall. That said, I understand that the Government have faced a thoroughly unpleasant job, which is especially unpleasant for a Conservative Government who understand the basic importance of the regimental system. There have been cries from some Opposition Members that the regimental system is out of date and that a big corps of infantry was the way for the future. That would be a disastrous mistake.
I touch briefly on one out-of-area garrison—the Falkland Islands. Several hon. Members may know of my interest in that part of the world. We have cut the garrison, quite rightly, to a very low level. The rank of the officer in command is, incidentally, incredibly senior for the small number of troops whom he has to command. However, we face a problem, which is not for the Ministry of Defence, but for the Foreign Office.
There is a need to find a long-term political solution to the problem of the area. We can get by at present when there is a very reasonable Government in Buenos Aires, but if something went wrong, if there was a change and if

a Government of a very different complexion started to shell some of the outlying islands of the Falklands, we would have to trundle our brigade group down there and keep them there as long as there was tension in the area. We would find that defence planning got hit for six.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): What purpose does it serve at this time to raise such hypotheses? As my hon. Friend said, there is a reasonable Government in Buenos Aires who have completely put on ice any territorial ambitions towards the islands which they may have. The islands fulfil a valuable strategic function for Antarctica and round the Horn. Should not it be kept in mind, therefore, that we have a presence that is invaluable and should be retained?

Mr. Townsend: My hon. Friend and I must debate the matter on another occasion. I take the opposite line. It is a defence liability to have such an isolated garrison 8,000 miles away which is so dependent on the United Kingdom for its defence. In the long run, we must come up with a political change in the south Atlantic which will ease that defence burden on the United Kingdom.
I feel that I have been too bland in some ways so far. If any of my colleagues are members of the Bruges group, I hope that they will grip their seats! I want to support what Lord Carrington said and what Sir Leon Brittan said about some European Community involvement in defence. I am well aware of the pitfalls. I understand that Ireland is not a member of NATO, although I think—and have reason to think—that Ireland would be prepared to play its part in the defence of Europe in future. However, I do not believe that it is practical to continue to isolate defence from the European Community. If I have got it correct, we are allowed to talk about European security, but not about European defence. At Heads of Government meetings, we are allowed to talk about co-ordinating foreign policy, perhaps in the middle east, but we are not allowed to talk about co-ordinating defence in the middle east. That seems short-sighted.
We have gone through a traumatic time in the defence world. The proposals that the Government have put before the House can be defended. They are honest, practical and sensible. We shall have a proper balance of nuclear and conventional forces. I look forward to defending those proposals in my constituency ere long.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit? To take even a few seconds more deprives colleagues of their allocation of time.

Mr. John McWilliam: I will try to be brief so that colleagues of all parties can get into the debate. I realise that there is a time constraint, which means that I shall be less generous than usual in giving way.
I first thank the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence for making available to the Select Committee on Defence visits to the Gulf both before and immediately after the conflict. It was extremely valuable to us and to other hon. Members who went with us, who were able to see beforehand the excellent work being done and to bear testimony to the professionalism


and bravery of the young men and women who served there. They included the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), whom we did not manage to meet while we were there.
I remind the House that there are a number of reports flagged to the Defence White Paper, which is what we are supposed to be debating today. The problem with White Papers is that, intellectually, they are always out of date the minute the ink dries, and the present White Paper has gone out of date rather more quickly than most. The 11th report of the Select Committee on Defence, on which I have the honour to serve, is flagged against the White Paper. Just in case any hon. Member has forgotten the words in the report of which the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) reminded us yesterday, let me repeat them now. Page vii of the report states:
Anyone buying SDE 91 in order to discover the strategic rationale for the changes proposed would be sadly disappointed. What SDE 91 regrettably fails to do, and does not even set out to do, is to argue in any detail the rationale behind the changes proposed, or provide a coherent strategic overview, in contrast to some previous White Papers which have proposed radical shifts in defence policy.
In his speech yesterday, the Secretary of State said that he would attempt to address that point. I have to tell the House that I listened most carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said and that he signally failed to do so.
A number of issues arise from the reports. One of them is the reduction in the number of battalions from 55 to 38. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee, said that he hoped that he would have support from hon. Members on both sides of the House for his suggestion that we examine that proposal. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has my support and that of my hon. Friends, because the proposal certainly needs examining. Given our present commit-ments and 55 battalions, we already have overstretch. The suggestion that there will be no overstretch at 38 battalions is untenable and needs to be looked at again. We are not merely talking about a mathematical count. I note that the Secretary of State included the Hong Kong battalion in the battalions that would not be needed. But we do not lose our commitment to Hong Kong until 1997—some considerable time beyond the period about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire also said that he hoped that we would be able to discover the arguments —the rationale—behind that decision. I must tell the House that I am worried about the matter. Page 13 of the 11th report of the Defence Committee, flagged against the White Paper, contains evidence taken on 12 June from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who is on the Government Front Bench. I asked the right hon. Gentleman about his thoughts:
Minister, we are not challenging your decision-making process, we are only asking how it happens. Will you tell us?
The Minister replied:
As I have said, I am not prepared to go into detail about the decision-making process in the Ministry of Defence.
I told the right hon. Gentleman at the time that I found that unacceptable. I can tell him now that I still find it unacceptable. The decision to cut the number of battalions from 55 to 38 remains unacceptable, and the Defence Committee will want answers to its questions. If the

Minister is not prepared to give them freely, we shall have to draw the obvious conclusion—that what we thought was the case is so and that this is not a defence review. I, for one, do not think that it is a defence review because it does not seem to address defence priorities or to give us the information that we need about which of the activities of the troops are no longer to be undertaken by military personnel. That is what we need to know. We will want those answers and we will want them in detail.
The nature of the decision to cut from 55 battalions to 38 seems to reflect considerations other than the viability of the units and the ability to recruit. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made the point that the cuts in the Scottish Division, which is fully manned, and the cuts in the Coldstream Guards and the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which recruit largely from the north, do not seem to be mirrored elsewhere—for example, in the lack of cuts in the Queen's Division. Perhaps that fact merely reflects the Government's projection of likely unemployment in the south as a result of their economic policies. Perhaps they think that there will be plenty of people to recruit to the Queen's Division; I do not know. I do know, however, that the rationale behind the cuts appears politically skewed and I do not like it.
Let me pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) last night. What is wrong with reviving the old Durham Light Infantry tag for the Territorial Army in Durham? Why cannot we do that for the territorials in other areas and revive the cap badges of the regiments that have been lost? I do not want to see those regiments lost. My grandfather was a member of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and my father was a member of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. I do not see why those regiments should be lost. At least their cap badges and traditions could be kept. After all, we do not know when we might have to recruit those battalions back up to regimental size. We do not know what will happen in the future.
I will tell the House something else that worries me. A number of hon. Members present this evening were fortunate enough to visit Nepal with the Defence Committee while it was considering the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I have already said that I do not want to lose recruitment to the Coldstreams or to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, but such considerations pale into insignificance when looked at in the context of the loss of pensions and remittances in the hills of Nepal. We are talking about the fourth poorest country in the world and those remittances go exactly where they are needed—to the hills. They are not filtered by agencies or Governments. No one gets his sticky fingers on them. Those people have given loyal service to Britain for centuries and I think that to slap them in the face, as the review does, is an insult not only to them but to the many hon. Members who have served with the regiment. The Minister has made a serious mistake in adopting such an attitude to the Gurkhas and I hope that he will reconsider.
For some reason, the Government seem to want tactical air stand-off missiles. Will the Minister tell us in his reply exactly what threat TASMs are supposed to meet, given the effectiveness of the ALARM missile that was used in the Gulf to suppress anti-aircraft radars and anti-aircraft missile radars? It seems to me that the Government are again yearning for a system that does not exist and that is not really needed.
I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) who, unfortunately, is not here at present. If the Government believe that the fourth Trident boat is needed, when will the order be made? Is there any truth in the rumour that VSEL is trying to put pressure on the Government to get type 23 orders to take the place of Trident orders and to screw the price of the Trident order accordingly? If that is true, it will have the most serious consequences on Clydeside and Tyneside. I do not think that the House should conclude the debate tonight without first having heard the Minister announcing the order and stating the price—or not.
Had the Labour party made such cuts, there would have been the most horrible headlines in The Sun, The Daily Telegraph and so on. Anyone who listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will realise that the Labour party had no intention of making such cuts when it came to power. The cuts are wrong and the Labour party would not have introduced them.

Mr. Robert Eloscawen: I want to take this opportunity to associate myself closely with the tributes paid in the debate to Britain's armed forces of today and in particular to those who served us so well in the Gulf. I have not had the opportunity to do so before. Many of those service men were from the Fleet Air Arm base which I am proud to represent in this place.
The RAF and the coalition air forces did a fantastic job in maintaining air supremacy and, as a consequence, our casualties were, thank goodness, exceedingly low. It was, however, an unpleasant war and that is clearly revealed by the war diary of the battalion in which my son served. I read it this morning and its says:
We trained for and fully expected a dour and unpleasant fight with an enemy who was both dogged and well equipped. The prospect of chemical or even biological warfare was a daunting thought, let alone the prospect of close infantry work at the point of a bayonet.
Our troops did well and they performed as their forebears have always performed. I believe that our Government, the Prime Minister and Ministers at the Ministry of Defence, performed well at that time, too, and they deserve credit for that.
After the changes in world politics no one recognises better than the service men whom I have mentioned and defence factory workers, of whom I represent a large number, that changes have to be made and that our forces have to be smaller. However, the Government have been cautious by not going too far in certain respects; in particular I have in mind the Government's order for the best anti-submarine warfare helicopter that they could buy to protect the Royal Navy. That will keep the Royal Navy ahead in that field well into the next century. Ministers and the companies concerned that are developing that very expensive system deserve full credit for this. I know that Westlands is determined to meet the challenge.
Alas, I cannot continue my catalogue of praise when it comes to the Army. The balance of the reductions goes too deep in the case of the number of infantry battalions. There is, of course, no major commitment for our forces that can be envisaged which we do not share with one or other of our allies—principally the United States—or perhaps on behalf of the United Nations.
However, our military experience and presence in significant numbers is very often essential in adding a restraining hand on such allies in out-of-area danger spots. We should not forget that. In his usual entertaining and interesting Punch and Judy show, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) reminded us that we are not out of the woods yet with regard to contemplating and planning for disasters and unexpected threats to our security and to those of our friends and allies who might call for help.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) posed a crucial question about another Falklands or another Gulf conflict and he received a considered answer today. However, that answer confirmed my worst fears. Should we regrettably have to take part in a similar operation, we would have nothing left in the locker, just like that awful day—15 September 1940—when we could not put another squadron into the air. The important point is the lack of reserves when a disaster occurs. We have been terribly lucky in recent conflicts not to meet a high attrition rate. That is what so concerns me.
The proposed reduction in the infantry to 38 battalions, two of which are somewhat limited in their deployment —the Gurkhas—goes to the heart of the problem that worries me and others. The worries are not simply felt by a rusty old firearm on the wall like myself, whether or not his is ill or well bred. The concerns are shared by many in the services today. Not just the senior brass at the peak of their careers may necessarily be worried, but the bright and up-and-coming middle rank officer who will have to see the changes through and the very respected long-serving senior non-Commissioned officers are worried. They have seen and felt the overstretch of unaccompanied tours over recent years. They are aware of the shortage of troops and the extra numbers that are required from time to time as a result of the energency in Northern Ireland and they are aware of the effects on morale, on families and on recruitment. They believe that the changes to the infantry will make it much harder for them to do their proper jobs. Those are serious charges and I am afraid that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday did not give me real confidence that they are being answered.
I refer to two of the important reasons given yesterday for the reductions, one of which was warning time. Of course, the warning time of an assault on the central front or anything remotely of that order will be greatly extended and that makes planning and deployment easier. However, our tiny Army must be ready to repel or defeat the sudden unexpected emergency that arises out of the blue. Let us look at the book: wicked men still exist and intelligence has too often proved to be indifferent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to the failures of intelligence in the recent conflict and the same was true in the Falklands war. I implore the MOD not to lean too much on the belief that there is plenty of warning time on all such occasions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, too, that units of other arms will be better placed to share the infantry emergency tours. However, he is well aware that specialists and others are always in short supply in our services. It is no real answer for a vital job not to be carried out by people wholly trained for it, if that can possibly be avoided.
I cannot allow the lamentable fate of the Household Division to go by default which, to a large extent, it has done. Under the proposals the division will simply no longer be able to carry out its dual job. In the original proposals it cannot have been foreseen or intended that its public ceremonial duties and role, largely in London, would have to be so severely curtailed. Senior officers are seriously warning us that, with the tiny additional increment that it is proposed to squeeze from the total strength of the Army, the five remaining battalions of the Foot Guards and the one battalion of the Household Cavalry simply will not be able to carry out the state duties that they perform at the moment. Some people may not agree with me and believe that the proposal is good, but I believe that the ceremonial duties set a standard far wider than just for all the armed forces. They add something special to the country and the country can ill afford to lose them.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will support the Chair in trying to implement the Standing Order.

Mr. John Morris: Lest I be thought churlish, once again I will say my thanks on behalf of Wales for the decisions on the Royal Welch Fusiliers.
I wish to deal briefly with one issue and one issue alone, and that is the housing of ex-service men. We have all had experience in our representations to local authorities over the years with homeless ex-service men and those about to be homeless. I have also seen the problem at the other end, both as a defence Minister and as a housing Minister. The plain fact is that hitherto there has been no concerted plan to house ex-service men. If something comes out of the current defence review—I look forward to the Minister's remarks—it will be a valuable and permanent bonus.
We are told in the press of proposals of a group of industry representatives, housebuilders and housing associations to offer serving members, first, 30 per cent. off the cost of their married quarters and, secondly, in the alternative some equity share deals in housing. I am sure that that is very welcome and that they will use part of the 70,000 married quarters, 10,000 of which are vacant. The danger, as with all house purchases, is that the best will be taken, leaving the worst for the remaining Army. I welcome that step as going some way to dealing with the problem.
One peculiarity of the consultations is that local authorities were excluded from them. The chairman of the Association of District Councils, Lady Anson, tells me that it asked for a meeting to discuss the MOD proposals, and that the MOD felt that no such meeting was necessary "at this stage." I read the letter with utter disbelief. It cannot be so. I am sure that the lady is not telling me an untruth.
I shall be very interested in the Minister's explanation of why an important component of the provision of housing in this country—local authority associations—were not consulted. Local authorities, of course, are under great pressure. Many ex-service men do not want to buy their houses, are not able so to do, or do not know which

area they want to live in. They have followed the drum in respect of joining the Army and they will want to follow their work when they come out. The Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association tells me that the vast majority of local authorities have nothing to offer by way of housing and that there is a constant trickle of local authorities or housing associations which strike service families from their lists. Council pools are getting smaller. It is perhaps natural that those furthest from the door are most vulnerable. I am told that the most recent one—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—is Rushmoor, a council which includes Aldershot, the home of the British Army. I should like to know whether it is one of the councils that have struck service men from their lists.
There is also great pressure on service families. There is more divorce in service families. Separation periods are bound to get longer with a smaller Army. Soldiers get married younger. Some of us have seen at first hand some of the problems of young wives posted to Germany, far away from the base, their husbands leaving for work early in the morning and returning home late in the evening. They are serious problems.
Over the years, service families tend to become institutionalised. I do not mean that in an offensive way, but they have been cocooned and looked after. Their housing and their furniture, for example, have been provided for them. In that sense, they are less well prepared to meet the problems of the outside world. We should recognise that fact.
I am told that 27 per cent. of soldiers, including officers, own their own homes. That is less than half the national average. On a quick calculation, a substantial number of alternative houses will be needed for service men who leave the services. Some will buy their own houses, some will not be able to do so, some will regard the location of existing Army homes as quite unsuitable, bearing in mind the place where they wish to enter the labour market. They will want to rent, given that so many of their families have been and are in council houses. Their kith and kin are in council homes. How can any plan be drawn up without consultation with the local authorities that eventually will be faced with the problem of homelessness?
The Ministry of Defence, as part of its responsibility, should consider a direct infusion of resources to councils and housing associations. Housing associations are some of the Government's favourite children. They do good work. Therefore, why not earmark a proportion of their resources to be made available to ex-service families? Indeed, a SSAFA-sponsored housing association might be brought into being and resourced to renovate some of the homes that councils cannot repair at the moment. There should at least be communication among local authorities, housing associations and the Ministry. I just cannot understand how the chairman of that distinguished association was able to write to me in that way. Opposition Members will be very interested in the Minister's explanation.
We owe our soldiers and their families a great deal. We have created their way of life. We have given them an expectation that that way of life will continue for many years. We are now breaking that expectation. They are the salt of the earth and we owe them a great duty. The way not to provide for them is for soldiers to have to go through undignified and, for some families, maritally stressful periods when a possession order has to be obtained and served on them by the Army. Soldiers will


then enter the ranks of the technically homeless in areas in which they want to work and live. I cannot think of anything worse than to end a military career in that way —the Army needing the home and asking for such an order on a service man.
I hope that my few remarks will bear some fruit. Although my service was short, as an old soldier I understand some of the problems of the young service men whom I looked after many years ago. Service men will now face a very stressful period going into the outside world without the resources and support that they have hitherto enjoyed.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): We have all been moved in this two-day debate by the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members—some of them demob happy, but none of them in any sense out of touch in what they said about our defence at this time. I refer in particular to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), and my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) and for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
In the next Parliament, probably more than half hon. Members will not have done national service. It is quite possible that, even now, more than half the members of the Cabinet have not done so. Although the "Options for Change" exercise may not be Treasury driven, the accumulated wisdom that comes with the profession of arms and the experience of serving under the colours is something that the House should hold very dear. It certainly was a formative experience in the careers of Harold Macmillan and Anthony Eden and many other distinguished servants of our country, including, of course, Sir Winston Churchill——

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: And Clement Attlee.

Mr. Wilkinson: Of course, including Clement Attlee and many others.
We should look at the way in which we run our parliamentary procedures and processes and see whether we can better address the problems of defence. What we lack in personal experience we may to some extent be able to replace by better procedures in this House and better training of our Members. Some hon. Members go on parliamentary service fellowships and return all the better for the experience. I went on a parliamentary industrial fellowship with a major industrial company which supplies armed fighting vehicles to our armed forces. I almost learnt more in that time than in many years spent simply in the House. We should address defence issues here in a spirit of reform.
Let us take five key issues and see how the House has dealt with them. I turn first to the European component of our defences. For many a long year, and now, lucky hon. Members—I say "lucky" avowedly—have served in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union. They have written reports about industrial collaboration and about European intervention forces. Like members of the North Atlantic Assembly, such as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy),,they have written many

other useful reports, all too many of which have accumulated dust in pigeonholes. Now, at long last, Her Majesty's Government claim to have recognised the importance of strengthening the European component of NATO. I hope that from now on the House and the Government will give the WEU and its Parliamentary Assembly the importance which they deserve.
Secondly, I recall that in the 1970 Parliament Ministers insisted almost ad infinitum that the Invincible class carriers, which were called the "through-deck" cruisers then, were not to have fixed-wing aircraft such as Harriers. Several of us, including the former Member for Beverley, Sir Patrick Wall, argued, argued and argued that it was fatuous to introduce this category of vessel into the fleet without Harriers. Indeed, without the Harrier carriers we would not have won the Falklands war. This example shows that the House can be instructive and educative, as it should be on the question of helicopters for our armed forces. We can all recall the Falklands and how overstretched our helicopters were throughout the conflict. The same was true in the Gulf war, yet the Select Commmittee report on the EH101, and other relevant Select Committee reports, are added as a rag, tag and bobtail to the Order Paper, and their recommendations about the need for modern attack helicopters and for modern utility helicopters, such as the EH101, have still not been acted upon by Her Majesty's Government.
There is also the issue of our reserves. Heaven alone knows how we will cope with the uncertainties of the future if we reduce our regular forces and reduce the number of our reserves at the same time. We should at least be compensating for the reduction of regulars by augmenting our reserves in number as well as quality. The Air National Guard and the United States Air Force Reserves played a crucial part in the Gulf war. We should take their example to heart and follow it.
Turning to the infantry, I shall not follow the admirable speeches which we have heard about the Brigade of Guards, the Scottish and other county regiments, but, like the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), I should like to refer to the Gurkhas. I initiated an Adjournment debate on this matter which, in 1989, also gave rise to one of the best Select Committee reports that the House has ever produced. Yet, flying wholly in the face of all the evidence that the Gurkhas are the most cost-effective troops, that they are fully recruited, that there are 250 applicants for every place and that their selection procedures are of the toughest, Her Majesty's Government have gone against the commitment—and it was more or less a commitment—to keep 4,000 and to go down from this minimum brigade strength to two battalions. It is extraordinary and shows the importance of the Government's taking note of Parliament's sensible suggestions.
Last but not least is the question of procurement. I have advocated for a long time that until the Select Committee on Defence acquires an appropriation function, as is the case with the United States Congress, it will remain a paper tiger and its reports will remain rag, tail and bobtail appendages on the Order Paper. It is important that the House itself takes note of that fact and acts upon it. Unless the collectivity of Parliament does so our Select Committees will remain relatively impotent.
I hope that all hon. Members have read today's first-class leader in The Times, which is headed "Mother of Word-Games". It exposes Parliament for what it is today


—a place of party, of privilege and of patronage, where people's aspirations for public office get the better of their individual consciences and judgment far too often. This is also allowed to happen because our Select Committees cannot properly do their job of scrutiny. Therfore, when we are seeking to achieve what we wish to achieve in a debate such as this, we have to adopt all sorts of subterfuges, such as voting against a perfectly sensible reasoned amendment from Her Majesty's principal Opposition, but then voting against the defence estimates themselves. That cannot make sense. It cannot be right. We need to be able to focus on our particular dissatisfaction, such as the fact that it is irresponsible to reduce our infantry battalions to the extent that they are being reduced. We need to focus on that matter and to put it right. The Times leader states:
The committees are the nearest Parliament gets to a plausible role in modern British government, the nearest to independence of party, to competence in a subject and to scrutiny of legislation and decisions.
I hope that, at the very least, following this debate we will put that matter right so that a defence review will never again be discussed at the fag-end of a Session. The review should have been discussed in the early stages of our processes, as soon as the conclusions of the Gulf war could reasonably have been assessed, not tagged on to our proceedings at the end of the Session. I hope that we can put our Select Committee system and parliamentary processes right so that our defences can be better served.

Sir Patrick Duffy: It is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in a defence debate. In my judgment, no hon. Member has a better feel for the subject or is better informed. I agree almost wholly with what he said and hope that hon. Members will ponder his speech.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the nature of the threat to the security of Europe is changing drastically. We are now moving from the era of a potentially big-war crisis to an era of multiple security risks. Considering the magnitude of such possible challenges, it is obvious that there is no single answer nor one single instrument that can provide the answers. Nor is this something that western Europe can be expected to cope with by itself. Hence the continued and vital need for transatlantic cohesion. So we must be thankful for all the new security structures that are coming along; for the addition of over-arching east-west structures such as the CSCE, notably, as well as for an increasingly tight network of arms control agreements, the Western European Union, and the growing concern of the European Community for peace and stability in all of Europe.
When we are asked where do non-NATO EC members like Ireland and non-EC NATO members like Norway and Turkey fit in, we are reminded of how fortunate we are in the possession of NATO, for NATO remains the one structure that provides actual security to its members, and now even further afield, as was demonstrated in the Gulf.
But we are also reminded of how complex and even confusing European security tapestry has become. Yesterday the Secretary of State commendably picked his way through that maze and, at the same time, in this framework of evolution and uncertainty, sought to

demonstrate the ability of British forces to defend the country and simultaneously to contribute to international security. I do not believe that you would expect me to say that he was as impressive on the second count as on the first, Madam Deputy Speaker, yet it is the second which the debate is all about.
Furthermore, NATO is also rethinking its long-established strategy and operational concepts. Although the strategy is not expected to be available until next month, it has already revealed the ace rapid reaction force concept as the key crisis contingency element of the future NATO force structure. It thereby pre-empted some of the Secretary of State's options for change by assigning the corps to British command.
Therefore, the task of the Secretary of State and his colleagues has not been easy. But the measure of creating the rapid reaction force will not be enough by itself. NATO members, including Britain, will also have to develop more skilful techniques of command and control for surveillance and intelligence gathering if crises and conflicts are to be headed off. But all that will prove inordinately expensive—and they are quite apart from weapons systems.
Against that background, certain questions arise. First, has our defence review been well conducted, properly thought through and well presented, and what has been its impact on those who matter first and foremost—our armed services? Despite the Secretary of State's assertion at his party conference last week that the cuts are
based on a full strategic assessment
rather than Treasury arithmetic, it was apparent yesterday afternoon that he had not yet convinced the House of Commons.
Certainly the strategic implications of this year's White Paper are little clearer than in last year's "Options for Change" precursor. There is no strategic vision as yet. That is understandable. I still sympathise with the Secretary of State. As the White Paper says:
the risks we now face are far less obvious and monolithic.
But when the White Paper reaffirms Britain's traditional commitments—they exist, but time does not permit me to rehearse them—it is saying that, given the cuts, the Government expect the armed forces to do the job that they are doing now, and have been doing, with a third less of everything. That has inevitably given rise to a fear on both sides of the House that the Government will yet find it impossible properly to meet any one of those commitments.
To turn to just one service—the House would expect me to look first to the Royal Navy—we cannot but notice how difficult is the position in which the Navy is placed. Short of money and of men, it does not know whether it is being asked to run a strategy aimed at the defence of the home base or a capability for intervention overseas.
If the Government are intent on cutting off the long-term future of the Navy, in the words of captain Richard Sharpe, editor of "Jane's Fighting Ships",
it would be more honest to say so, rather than continuing to pretend to commitments not matched by the required order rate of new ships.
It is difficult to avoid the feeling that the new policy, strategy and tactical doctrines for NATO forces in Europe have not been fully thought out. Even outside Europe, where the Secretary of State has left British military strategy as it is, is he sure that he is providing enough men and equipment? A drastic reduction in infantry battalions


and armoured regiments is unavoidable. But is the Secretary of State satisfied that he is not sacrificing the ability to cope with the unexpected; that the cuts will not lead to an over-stretching of forces in peacetime and a dangerous shortage in times of tension; that postings will not become longer; that service life will not become less interesting; and that recruitment and retention will not suffer?
This afternoon the Minister told the House that he was satisfied that high-intensity conflicts, at least one at a time, could be met successfully. But what of the impact on the services and their morale? Morale has already suffered in the past year. There has been so much uncertainty. The Americans have gone through the same exercise, but it has not had the same unsatisfactory impact on their service men.
If the strategic rationale for the Secretary of State's policy looks questionable and its presentational aspects and impact on services morale are also questionable, the budgetary sense of his proposals is even harder to assess. I believe that "smaller but better forces" is a worthy objective. Nevertheless, there is doubt, again on both sides of the House. The House is not yet convinced that that objective can be achieved. The Minister will recognise that there is a real danger that smaller could lead to much smaller, given economies of scale. It is his job above all to follow that one through. He will know that the overheads needed to support small forces are high and that the cuts may push forces below threshold levels of viability. But what about the equipment that goes with those men? In the less well defined security environment of the 1990s requiring mobility, flexibility and above all high technology, the systems that he will have to provide will prove increasingly expensive.
The most serious criticism that can be applied to the White Paper is that it is geared only to the transition from the cold war to whatever may succeed it. Yet it sets in motion a dramatic restructuring of Britain's armed forces without attempting to describe the circumstances in which they will be most likely to operate. The review can be complete only when that restructuring has been related to the emerging international system.
The Secretary of State has pleaded uncertainty. Yes. But if we face an uncertain future we may also face an unexpected threat. We have done so more than once in recent years alone. Therefore, we must plan against uncertainty, no matter how difficult that is. The structures that we choose must avoid rigidity and finality, however much the future remains wrapped in uncertainty and obscurity.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy). The United Kingdom Parliament has sat here since 1707. Parliament is a forum for the discussion and debate of issues. We are supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. Where is democracy and debate when the Secretary of State says on television outside this Chamber half way through the debate that, whatever we say and whatever arguments are made, he will not change his mind? That is not government by Parliament, but government by diktat.
The Secretary of State made great play of the advance of democracy in Soviet Russia. Perhaps we have reversed

our roles. Those are harsh words perhaps, but if soft words cannot prevent foolhardy decisions, harsh things must be said and I am compelled by duty and with sadness to say them.
The first premise of the cosy picture of the safe and peaceful world that the Secretary of State painted last evening is surely odd when this morning President Gorbachev had to call a meeting to prevent the disintegration of Russia and has also had to call in the United States to prevent civil war with nuclear weapons in Russia itself. If we cannot find the nuclear weapons in Iraq under an international treaty, what chance do we have of controlling them in a disintegrating Soviet Union?
We did not foresee the Falklands. We did not foresee Grenada. We did not foresee Kuwait or the Berlin wall. We have not foreseen anything that has happened. I just ask what unexpected conflicts we will have to discuss if we have a debate in a year's time.
The Secretary of State's second fallacy was his comparison of the artillery. It is false to compare Alamein with the Gulf war. A weapon is only as good as its user, as the Scuds and Tomahawks demonstrated. Far more people were killed by free-fall bombs dropped from old aeroplanes on Dresden in one night than were killed in Kabul or Beirut by thousands of rockets of modern construction falling on them night after night.
I know about that because I was in the artillery and fired the first corporal rockets, or missile rockets as they were called then. The first one went a bit askew. It went off towards St. Kilda, which is a bird sanctuary. That was in the days when Ministers did not come to the Dispatch Box to plead that the Ministry of Defence was environmentally friendly during a debate in which it was seen to be cussedly insensitive to its own forces.
The third fallacy is that we can meet our commitments. No infantry commander believes that. Even if we could, it overlooks that circle of decline which the hon. Member for Attercliffe mentioned: more duty, less training, less expertise, shorter service, the best go and, worst of all, more divorce and less morale.
The fourth fallacy concerns the proposed amalgama-tion, which means destruction, of the four Scottish regiments, which the Secretary of State described as "considerate and fair"—the authorised version in his speech on 23 July—or "careful and prudent"—the revised version of yesterday evening. It is not fair. Under the Goschen formula it is 10:1. If we are to lose four regiments, the English should lose 40. If they are to lose five regiments only, we should lose one bren group. That is a ridiculous concept of fairness. As a result we shall have 5,000 job losses. For those men in the highlands and the lowlands that will mean neither guns nor butter.
The Secretary of State misunderstands the regimental tradition in Scotland. It is entirely different from that of England. There is a weft and a weave—I ask forgiveness of those in Cheshire, Staffordshire and so on—of the whole community and the whole concept of our society in Scotland. The kilt and the pipes are part of the military and civil traditions which are interwoven and inseparable.
My ancestress founded the Gordon Highlanders——

Mr. Menzies Campbell: She gave a kiss to every man who enlisted.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: She did not do so by giving every man a kiss. She held the King's shilling in her lips and when the man took it he got it. All the Scottish regiments are fully recruited.
The fifth fallacy is that there has been full consultation. The Army Board is itself. That is not full consultation. The council of colonels was given this consultation: "You will be hanged, drawn and quartered. Either you are hanged, drawn and quartered or you decide in which order you want to be quartered, hanged and drawn. Otherwise, we will decide it for you." That is not consultation.
On 23 July the Secretary of State boasted:
For more than 40 years the British Army has stood in the front line in Europe with our NATO allies."—[Official Report, 23 July 1991; Vol. 195, c 1036.]
For 285 years the Scottish infantry regiments have been guarding the safety of the realm of the United Kingdom. They have served worldwide in wholly disproportionate numbers and with casualties in every engagement from Lucknow to Kuwait. The father of the colonel of the Queen's Own Highlanders, already an amalgamation of the Cameron and Seaforth Highlanders, and about to be amalgamated again if the Secretary of State does not see sense, then commanding the Seaforths on the first day of the Somme, went into battle with 600 Jocks and came back with 40. That is the sacrifice that Scotland has made. That is not an argument of sentimentality or of specialty. It is an argument and a warning—I am afraid, a terrible warning —of the consequences of ill-thought-out acts of obstinacy.
Bydand—I bide my time—is the motto of the Gordons. They will bide their time and the Secretary of State will be the victim. If he betrays those who have played the greatest part—the lion's share, or the unicorn's if hon. Members prefer—in the defence of the union of the realm since 1707 with ferocity, sacrifice and loyalty, and those who are most loyal to the union now and who would vote and fight for it, he may find that he has not only cut the Army but broken the union. "Nemo me impugne lacessit" is the motto of Scotland and means, essentially, "Don't affront the Jocks or they won't forget it"—and, by God, we won't.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall deal later with some of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn).
Parts of the procedures of this House disturb me and one, if I may speak with great humility, is the way that we pass over bereavements. I hope that the House will forgive me if I preface my remarks by saying how much I miss the late Member for Kincardine and Deeside, Mr. Buchanan-Smith. [HON. MEMBERS": "Hear, hear."] He was certainly a right honourable gentleman. He stood up and made his views well known, occasionally against his party. Although we in the House can differ across the Floor, in other ways we are bound by friendship. I am speaking personally because I paired with him and I miss him a great deal.
There are great paradoxes in the debate. They are most profound in relation to the diminution of tension in east-west relations. We no longer behave as if the Soviet Union was worse than the Third Reich. Now we are concerned lest the Soviet Union disintegrates like a contemporary Austro-Hungarian empire.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who is not in his place but that is understandable, said that we should cut our defence expenditure even further; but he

did not say what he would cut. He made no suggestions. I will not fall into that trap. It is the Government's responsibility in putting forward "Options for Change" to promote their case. The onus of proof for what they are doing is in their hands. We in the Scottish National party say clearly that we cannot have adequate, appropriate, conventional defence and retain the posturing of being a strategic nuclear power.
The old argument was that we needed these weapons because the Soviet Union had them and that, although we were friendly with the United States and they furnished these weapons, we could not be sure that they would use their strategic weapon in certain circumstances, which were never defined, in our defence. That is not the case now. The argument has shifted. Now there is no conceivable reason for suggesting that we would use our strategic nuclear weapon—Polaris if it is viable, and there are great questions about that—against the Soviet Union or its "disintegrating" component parts. Now the argument is that we need them because we have discovered that Saddam Hussein has them. If that argument is advanced to anyone in the international theatre or in any other nation state, the logical question is why should the newly united Germany not have such weapons? Why not Japan? That is a recipe for proliferation.
One of the unmentionables in this debate in relation to the middle east—I do not applaud its omission—is the fact that Saddam Hussein tried to acquire a nuclear potential because Israel had such a potential and was developing it further. That development is still continuing, but what proposals do the Government or anyone else have to disarm Israel? There are no such proposals.
Let us be frank, I am speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party and our amendment makes it clear where we stand on this issue. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross made great protestations about how Scotland is being used and abused. Scotland is currently the nuclear dustbin and at the next general election we Scots will have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to have our nation used as the prime site from which strategic nuclear weapons could continue to be marshalled for probable use. Scottish Labour Members in particular will have to ask themselves that question. They are the same individuals who cheered when it was announced that the United States Poseidon fleet was being removed from Holy Loch. Will they be the same people who will cheer when the four Trident submarines come into Faslane from Coulport?
We have been told that the general election will be held within the next nine months and I believe that there will be overwhelming Scottish support for the stance that the SNP has taken tonight and will take at that election—I am willing to wage a bet on it.
One cannot have Trident and adequate and appropriate conventional forces. Let us examine the Navy. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that the Army will be cut by one third. One could not cut the Navy any further. A realistic examination of the numbers in the Navy reveals that there are between 40,000 and 50,000 personnel—imagine a cut of one third. The Navy is already starved of adequate surface vessels and the ordering pattern for type 23s has been pushed to the right and diminished.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Dead right.

Mr. Douglas: The Labour Front Bench spokesman may say that I am dead right, but what is the Labour party's commitment to conventional forces if it intends to keep four Trident submarines? The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) should remember his own speeches. He said that we should not have SSNs but SSKs —conventional submarines. How can the Labour party have SSKs, order type 23s and keep up all the other requirements? That cannot be done unless defence expenditure is increased and not subject to a cut.
I have some knowledge of Yarrow and I have had talks with Sir Robert Easton. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they have put out a tender for three vessels. The resources of the yard were called into being by the Government. The Government said that we needed a naval shipbuilding yard and Yarrow constricted a frigate factory. The Government, having called those resources into being, cannot simply walk away. The same argument applies to Ferranti.
Let us consider the Scottish battalions or what is euphemistically called the Scottish Division. We have spoken in general terms about numbers, but what are we talking about? If we take all the Scottish regiments, the cuts mean a reduction from nine battalions to six, which is equivalent to 3,600 men. That is not even a good crowd at East End park. We are told that what will be left will be sufficient in terms of recruitment from Scotland—no wonder the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross gets annoyed.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made great play about the discussions that have gone on with Scottish Enterprise. I do not want to claim any great credit for a defence diversification agency or fund, but when did the Labour party meet Scottish Enterprise to discuss this proposal? We in the SNP met representatives from Scottish Enterprise on 26 June and put the proposals to them.

Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman want an answer now?

Mr. Douglas: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will write to me.
There is an excellent article in today's edition of the Financial Times which reveals the importance of defence procurement. The defence industry, called into being by the Government, has many diversification ideas and concepts that need to be underpinned. That should be done by the Government and should be part of their responsibility and it should be part of the options for change that the Government should accept.

Mr. Churchill: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). May I say how much his colleagues on the Defence Select Committee miss him now that he is no longer with us?
This has been one of the most crucial debates on the defence estimates that I can recall in the 21 years that I have had the privilege to serve in this House. One must ask whether those on the Treasury Bench are listening to the House, to the Army and to the country. The Secretary of State has, understandably, made much of the transformation of the Soviet threat and the collapse of the Warsaw pact. We all rejoice that the nations of eastern Europe,

after 50 years of occupation, first by the Nazis and then the Soviets, have rejoined the ranks of free nations. It is right that we should take full account of that when readjusting our defence dispositions.
Since the publication of "Options for Change" in July last year, we have had to fight an unforeseen middle east war and there has been a Stalinist coup in the Soviet Union that mercifully failed. Both of those events underline how impossible it is to foresee the future and how essential it is to be prepared for the unexpected.
I welcome the fact that President Bush moved swiftly on the issue of short-range and battlefield nuclear weapons. That gave President Gorbachev the excuse to call in the tens of thousands of such weapons that are lying about in depots throughout the Soviet Union. Let us hope it is not too late.
Two nightmare scenarios confront us in the Soviet Union today. First, there is the prospect of civil war in a country that has nuclear weapons and, secondly, there is the possibility of freelance sales of nuclear weapons by individual commanders or groups who may lay their hands on just a few artillery shells to the likes of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. Those dangers underscore the vital necessity of the United Kingdom maintaining its deterrent, which is safe in Conservative hands only.
Whatever concerns may exist about the "Options for Change", they are as nothing when compared to the cuts that a Labour Government would impose, with their commitment to slash defence expenditure, not by 5 per cent., but by 30 per cent. Tens of thousands of service personnel would be thrown out of work as well as tens of thousands of civilians employed in the defence industries. That is why I shall be supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight. Nevertheless, I do not want my right hon. Friend to be under any illusion but that I believe that the cuts go too far.
It is a tragic and bitter moment to see lined up for disbandment so many regiments of the British Army, with their proud traditions of service to the Crown and glorious battle honours won over centuries through gallantry and sacrifice. It is especially painful to see senior nonCommissioned officers and others who have dedicated their lives to the service of their country being made compulsorily redundant. We have a special responsibility to ensure that they are properly treated—at least no worse than workers of British Steel who are made redundant.
Like most people, I accept that changes must be made, reductions implemented and hard decisions taken, including a 50 per cent. cut in our forces in Germany. But there is a deep-seated flaw in the premise on which "Options for Change" is based. It is the assumption that we had large enough armed forces in the first place. In fact, we have among the smallest armed forces in the world for the size of our population.
For every 1,000 of population, Switzerland has a mobilised armed strength of 96; Sweden, 84; Iraq, 52; the Soviet Union, 30; the United States, 20; Germany, 19; Italy, 16; France, 15; and the United Kingdom today, barely 11. Only Japan among the major nations has smaller armed forces for size of population than we have, yet the Government are determined to make cuts of 25 per cent. in the Army.
After "Options", in the event of a major crisis requiring the full mobilisation of all our armed forces, out of every 1,000 Britons, 990 of us would be without a weapon and without a war role. Is that prudent and wise? My right hon.
Friend has called his proposals "Options for Change". If that is the case, where are the options? No options have been put before the Army or the House. All I see is a blueprint for cuts. I see no options whatever. Nor do the Government show any inclination to change.
For a nation that aspires to be the world's greatest policeman, second only to the United States, cutting our Army from 55 to 38 battalions will inevitably impose greater strain on the remaining infantry battalions. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks, especially in respect of Northern Ireland tours, which will come round ever faster and deprive the Army of the capability and flexibility it needs to meet a crisis.
Much of the overstretch could be avoided if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) rightly suggested, six infantry battalions were added back, at a cost of a mere £75 million, the price of three Tornados. We would probably save that cost in lesser attrition by the fact that we have a smaller air force, remembering that many planes will be in mothballs on the ground instead of flying at low level. In other words, the resources are probably already contained within the defence budget.
Other hon. Members have spoken for the Cheshire and Staffordshire regiments, and I share their concern, but in view of my family's special link with airborne forces, I make a special plea for the Parachute Regiment. My grandfather, in June 1940, called the airborne forces into being. I deplore the fact that the Territorial Army parachute battalions are to be cut by more than half.
The paras are well known for their rigorous selection procedures and excellent qualities, common to the regular and TA battalions. Military parachuting provides one of the greatest peacetime tests for a soldier and every country regards its paras as an elite force. The United Kingdom led the way with its Red Devils—and the Falklands war demonstrated that they do not need parachutes to prove their worth.
The parachute battalions bring special qualities to ordinary infantry tasks, so they should be the last to be cut. That is recognised in the unique decision to retain three regular parachute battalions, a fact which makes even less comprehensible the proposal to halve the TA parachute battalions. On the face of it, the proposal is that one battalion shall be lost—the 15th Scottish parachute battalion—which makes it look like a cut of a third. But because the remaining battalions will be reduced to a standard small size, it in fact represents a cut of more than half.
Rethinking the number of infantry battalions in the Army would be seen as a sign, not of weakness but of wisdom, maturity and strength. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter.

Mr. John Cartwright: I begin with a brief reference to my constituency. Woolwich has been a military town since Henry VIII established his dockyard there in 1515. Woolwich Arsenal was set up in 1671 and Woolwich then became the cradle of the Royal Artillery, being closely involved with it since its formation in 1716. Sadly, that military tradition is steadily being eroded. The royal ordnance factory closed in 1967, followed by a number of transfers and shutdowns of a variety of military

units. We now know that the Royal Arsenal will close after 1993 and we have doubts about the future of the Royal Artillery in Woolwich, with suggestions that they may move to Larkhill.
I understand the case for reducing the number of artillery regiments from 22 to 16. The awesome firepower of the multiple launch rocket system needs far fewer soldiers for its operation. I also appreciate the need to concentrate training on the most cost-effective sites. But the idea that the Royal Artillery might be forced to leave its birthplace at Woolwich is greeted with absolute horror by many of my constituents. To them, Woolwich without the gunners would be like Blackpool without the tower. It would also mark the end of 500 years of history. When hard decisions must be taken, I hope that there is some small scope for recognising the benefits of tradition and historic loyalties.
I shall concentrate on the wider issues of European defence. It is inevitable in the current situation that we should be debating the future role and reorganisation of NATO. The alliance was established to counter the threat of Soviet communist expansionism. That threat no longer exists in the form which we have grown used to over 40 years. The Warsaw pact has collapsed and the Soviet Union is breaking up.
As hon. Members have pointed out, that does not remove risks and uncertainties. The reverse is the case. The collapse of the Soviet empire is creating new instabilities in east and central Europe. The problems of ethnic and cultural differences and all the ancient enmities are reasserting themselves. NATO in its present form is clearly not geared to deal with that sort of problem. We have the example of Yugoslavia, where the NATO alliance is forced to sit and watch as the tragedy unfolds. So it is clear that we must revamp NATO to meet the much less certain and more difficult threats to peace and stability that we shall see in Europe in the years to come. It would be extremely foolish to risk destroying a tried and trusted institution which has worked well for 40 years in a rush of enthusiasm for some common European defence system.
Of course, we want an effective European pillar within NATO and of course we want closer and more effective co-operation between European Community members in the sphere of defence. But that must not involve trying to squeeze out the United States and Canada from the European scene. It is not just the physical presence of United States troops and weapons that is important to Europe; it is the habit of collective decision-making between Europe and North America. Joint exercising, the development of collective infrastructure and the standardisation of doctrine and strategy have made NATO effective. I believe we desperately need to maintain those very real assets.
Much of the successful co-operation that we saw in the Gulf war stemmed from the fact that individual national forces were used to working together in the NATO framework and were operating well-understood NATO systems and procedures. There is obviously a powerful case for closer defence co-operation within Europe. The Gulf war underlined the importance of sophisticated high-tech weapons and communications systems; but, as the armed forces become smaller, the short production runs required to meet purely individual national needs will not be viable on a single-nation basis. Joint procurement,


collaboration and standardization—all the things about which we have been talking for the past 30 years—will be not merely desirable, but essential.
We should be working towards greater role specialisa-tion between European partners; working towards joint targeting, joint training and the creating of effective multinational forces. All that makes absolute practical sense. What concerns me, however, is the idea that a common defence and security policy in Europe can be imposed by a system of majority voting.
Sir Leon Brit tan said something quite interesting about that in the summer edition of the RUSI Journal. He said:
There must be no forcing of tactics. When it conies to matters of defence and security there can be no imposition of policy on unwilling partners.
That seems to me to make complete sense.
I had understood that the Government were adopting an equally clear and robust position. However, this week we have seen what I regard as disturbing press reports suggesting that Britain may now agree to "operational" security decisions being subject to majority voting in the European Community. In my view, such a concession would leave the Government on a very slippery slope from which there is no way back. Once majority voting has been conceded on the so-called "low-level" security issues, we shall inevitably find ourselves being pushed further and further towards an arrangement whereby major defence issues are decided by majority voting.
I believe that that will undermine the Government's welcome attempt to establish the Western European Union as a bridge between the European Community and NATO. I think that the Government are absolutely right to try to ensure that any European defence policy is compatible with NATO strategy; but that, I believe, will be much more difficult to achieve if we accept the idea that European security issues can be dictated by majority voting.
Like other speakers, I welcome the proposals by both the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce nuclear arsenals, and to step down the thermo-nuclear ladder. I am particularly glad to note the proposed scrapping of the land-based short-range nuclear systems, which I have always regarded as the most dangerous and the least militarily usable.
Nuclear weapons, however, are unlikely to disappear from the world; indeed, the problems of nuclear proliferation are much more likely to grow than to disappear. We have the Iraqi example; and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) gave us a chilling warning of the risks of Soviet nuclear capability being spread about and, perhaps, falling into extremely unstable hands. I believe that, in such circumstances, the Government are entirely right to stick to the full four-boat Trident programme and to ensure that, in an uncertain world, Britain retains an effective and credible strategic deterrent.
Sub-strategic nuclear systems are just as important, however. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) referred to the growth of ballistic missile capabilities in a number of nations in the middle east which could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical and germ weapons.
I do not accept that the threat of strategic nuclear weapons against such a potential enemy is credible. I think that we need much smaller, much more flexible systems to deal with the growing problem. That is why I believe that

the Government are right to pursue the development of an air-launched sub-strategic nuclear system to replace the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb. Now that the United States has decided not to continue with the SRAM-T programme involving short-range attack missiles, the case for Anglo-French co-operation on the ASLP programme grows stronger. The Government have been examining the issue for some time. I understand that the decision to be made is both complex and important, but I hope that we shall see some positive action before much longer.
For as far ahead as any of us can now see, our security in Britain will depend on a mixture of conventional and nuclear weapons. Those weapons must be modern; they must be effective; and, above all, they must be credible.

Mr. Richard Alexander: A great deal of our debate rightly has been taken up with the proposed amalgamations of regiments, but I think that we should consider other aspects as well—especially the effect of the proposals on the lives of individual service men and women.
This year I was fortunate enough to spend a good deal of my parliamentary time with the Royal Air Force under the auspices of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Let me begin by paying tribute to the dedication, professionalism and sheer skill of all whom I met—members of every rank. Their worth and courage were proved in the Gulf, and they were particularly exposed there, for all to see. All who did see recognised the great saving of life at the end of the Gulf war which was achieved as a result of the heroism and courage of the Royal Air Force.
I believe, however, that we should now take more notice of the uncertainty that the proposals mean to individual men and women. During the summer, I was astonished to learn that very few service men and women had had an opportunity to read the White Paper, and that it had not been explained to any of them. All that they knew was that squadrons were to be disbanded—as listed on page 84 of the White Paper.
I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange for any service man or woman who is to be made redundant as a result of the proposals to be given at least six months' notice. I speak for members of the Royal Air Force; I have no knowledge of the other services, although I suspect that their experience is the same. Defence Ministers must surely be aware of the turbulence experienced by RAF families who do not know what is to happen to them.
That applies particularly to squadrons in Germany that are to be disbanded. Many come from homes in the south of England, where property prices are now way above the level that any aircraftman, corporal or sergeant would expect ever to attain. They are given a disturbance allowance of, I believe, £800, and are allowed a couple of weeks in which to return to Britain and try to find accommodation. They are also given a single pass each; and that is it.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber: perhaps he can correct me if I am wrong. I freely confess that I am simply repeating what I have been told. I should like to think that I will be corrected; that the redundancy package is significantly more generous, and that those men and women are allowed to come back to Britain two or three times, on passes for themselves and their spouses, to


arrange temporary accommodation, look for new homes, consult lawyers and arrange banking facilities—par-ticularly, of course, when they have found a house that they like. If such a scheme exists, however, it is not widely known in the services. Ministers should ask themselves whether they are doing enough for the men and women who will be subject to the proposals in the White Paper.
I am glad to learn of proposals to allow people in such circumstances to take advantage of surplus married-quarters accommodation. There is a good deal of it around the country, and I feel that we should assist not only those who are due to be made redundant, but those who continue to serve. There is continuing anxiety that the gratuity at the end of their time as service men or service women will not be sufficient to get them into the housing market. We must make them feel valued, not undervalued.
The statements on pages 55 and 56 of the defence White Paper, which is all that is involved in explaining what will happen to service personnel, are not enough. Again I stand to be corrected. It may be that the defence White Paper is not the place to expand on the problems faced by service personnel. If it is not the right place—and I accept that it may not be—there ought to be another way in which this can be explained to them. I should have liked the conditions of service to be looked at more clearly and given greater prominence.
I am most anxious that we should use our service men and women as effectively and productively as we possibly can. When I go round Royal Air Force stations I wonder whether it is necessary for all aircraftmen and aircraftwomen and all corporals and sergeants to have nothing but guard duty to do on their stations for one week out of eight. We train them at enormous expense to the taxpayer, yet they have to carry out this unskilled and boring duty, round and round the camp. Furthermore, with the reductions in personnel numbers, those duties, which amount to one week in eight at present, are likely to be significantly increased as the defence White Paper is implemented.
When one considers the highly skilled duties for which these men and women have been trained and that they are carrying out, it really is "Dad's Army" stuff for them to have to spend so much of their time patrolling the perimeter of their RAF stations. In these times, it is also a dangerous occupation for which they have not been properly trained. That task should be undertaken by an expanded regimental or Royal Air Force police. No civilian business in this country would ask its middle managers to spend one week out of eight as night watchmen in its establishment. Our Royal Air Force personnel require a better deal than that. Our RAF stations require a professional guard manned by a professional trained force for that purpose within the RAF police.
I have concentrated on the Royal Air Force, since that is what I learnt about during my time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I hope that my remarks do not encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say, "All that they do is to come back and whine about a service that they studied." I have a great deal of affection for the Royal Air Force. I hope that my remarks will be

regarded as constructive as well as slightly critical. All that I am saying is that the White Paper ought to have addressed many of the concerns to which I have referred.
We must make our service men and women feel that they are valued and needed and that their concerns, as well as those of their families, will be looked after. They have no one else to speak for them. Many of them told me about their problems, so I asked them, "Have you talked to your MP about them?" Most of them have no contact or very little contact with their Member of Parliament. After a few years away from this country they do not know who their Member of Parliament is. They have no trade union. No one is asking that they should, but someone ought to speak for service personnel in the way that the police—a similarly disciplined service—have a staff federation. Perhaps we ought to consider a staff federation to look after the individual needs of service men and service women.
If we do not react positively to these concerns, we shall continue to fail to recruit enough men and women to the services. The Royal Air Force needs 9,500 a year. According to the latest figures, only 4,500 are coming in, even in these times of high unemployment. My message, therefore, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is: make sure that we look after our service personnel and ensure that future defence White Papers concentrate a little more on the service's greatest resource.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have great sympathy for those who are being forced out of the armed forces and for the people who have defence jobs that they are likely to lose. Between 1945 and 1950 we were able to assimilate back into good jobs far more people from the defence industries and the armed forces and we did so without a great deal of hardship being suffered. If it was possible then and we fail this time, it will mean that the Government have failed to tackle the problem. Far more effort should be devoted to tackling the problems faced by people coming out of the services and by those who work in our defence industries. Alternative employment must be found for them.
"Options for Change" has been a total disaster. It did not even start out as a review. The claim was made that it was not a proper review. Insufficient time was spent on looking at the problems faced by this country. Far too much time was spent on looking at how cuts could be made in certain areas instead of looking at the overall threat. Far more emphasis should have been placed on that threat.
One of the most amazing developments in recent weeks was President Bush's announcement of unilateral cuts. I have supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for over 30 years. The point has continually been made to me that if unilateral cuts are made, other countries will not follow that example. I feel that I have been very much justified by the fact that, after one person made a proposal for unilateral cuts, reciprocal cuts have been made. That broke the log jam and was extremely important in getting disarmament moving. The response from the Soviet Union and NATO appears to have been generous, but the British Government's response has been minimal. I welcome the fact that nuclear depth charges are to be taken off the ships. However, we have not gone very much further than that. The British Government should go further.
The Secretary of State should look closely at the Polaris submarines. We envisage very little threat from the Soviet Union during the next three or four years. We could unilaterally put forward proposals either to abandon the Polaris programme altogether or at least to say that we no longer have to try to keep up the pretence of having one ship on patrol at all times. It has been clear for the past nine months that, due to the state of those boats, they have not been carrying out the original intention to patrol close to the Arctic circle. On occasion, they have been seen passing boats in the Clyde. It is wrong that the people who serve on those boats and those who repair them should be put at risk when there is no genuine threat. It would have been well worth while to take a unilateral step over the Polaris submarines.
I understand the Government's problems. If they admit that Polaris is pretty well useless, it is difficult for them to go on justifying the introduction of the Trident programme. However, there is now a strong argument that the Government should slow down the Trident programme, on the basis that, at least in the short term, we cannot envisage a use for that weapons system.
The crucial problem now is not that a super-power threatens us, but that a number of powers, such as Iraq, may pose a threat to this country. The threat from those countries is not one with which Trident is ideally designed to deal. We should adopt a different approach. We should aim at getting an effective non-proliferation treaty in place. The present non-proliferation treaty is an absolute farce. Iraq is a signatory. It gaily signed the treaty, but took not the slightest bit of notice of it. The problem with that treaty is that it contains virtually no enforcement powers.
With that treaty running out in 1995, we should be working for an effective non-proliferation treaty that will stop any other country from becoming a nuclear power and ensure that there is an adequate inspection system. That should not mean that, as at present, we can inspect just what is going on in Iraq because there are other countries about which, if they ever obtained nuclear weapons, I would be very unhappy. The idea of deterrence works on the basis that countries behave in a rational way. I fear that there are one or two countries that would not behave in such a way. Therefore, I make a strong plea that we should put all our energy into obtaining an effective non-proliferation treaty.
If we are to have credibility in the rest of the world in suggesting such a treaty, we must ensure that we are reducing our nuclear reliance, not increasing it. I do not understand why we cannot move towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. In military terms we cannot justify carrying out an annual British test. It may be underground, but it still produces radioactive material. We should be prepared to ban it as one of the steps towards pushing for a non-proliferation treaty.
Why do we have to talk about a new weapons system —the tactical air-to-surface missile—when everybody else is prepared to scale things down? We have a problem and it was referred to during Defence questions today. The system that we were most likely to consider was derived from the United States, which has cancelled it. The Secretary of State said that that is not a problem as there are several other systems that we can consider. As I understand it, whichever system we look at will have to be placed on the Tornado, many of which will be based in Germany. I wonder whether Ministers have asked the German Government or the German people whether they

are happy to have a new nuclear weapons system on their soil. It is crazy for Britain to be going down that route now. We should be saying that we want a nonproliferation treaty and the way to get that is to look at de-escalating nuclear arms, not increasing them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that, in the review of military requirements, there does not appear to have been any consideration of our requirements for defence land. Most people are aware that, for obvious reasons, during the second world war the military took over large tracts of the British countryside. It was clear by the 1960s that the military had more land than was necessary and the Nugent inquiry into defence land was set up. It made substantial recommendations for the military to release a great deal of land. Since that time we have substantially reduced personnel requirements and it seems logical that we should be considering releasing land. It is a pity that we still hold for military purposes land around Lulworth cove and parts of the Pembroke coast, which are areas of outstanding natural beauty that people should be able to enjoy in peace and quiet. I know that in recent years it has been possible to walk on some of the ranges when they are not in use, but that is not the same as restoring the land to agricultural use. I plead with the Government to carry out an effective review of defence land.
This is a disappointing defence review exercise. The Government should turn their emphasis towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. That would be a far better way of protecting this country than continuing with Polaris and going on to rely on Trident as a deterrent system when it may be difficult to deter some of those who are likely to obtain nuclear weapons in the future. We need an effective worldwide non-proliferation treaty with proper inspection so that we are not held to ransom in the future by any country with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The message to the Government from Conservative Members is, "Please think again". The defence estimates are unacceptable and virtually every speech from Conservative Members, with one or two exceptions, has been highly critical of the Government and the estimates. The speeches from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), from my hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the splendid speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) have been outstanding contributions to the debate.
I represent a constituency in Cheshire where the county regiment is to be merged with the Staffordshire regiment. My regiment, the 14th/20th King's Hussars, in which I had the honour to serve in the 1950s, is to be amalgamated with the Royal Hussars. Therefore, I am sure that the Treasury Bench is aware of my concern and my opposition to the decisions. I believe fervently that the reductions in our armed forces proposed in "Options for Change" fall disproportionately and unfairly on the Army. From my research during the early discussions it was clear that one of the criteria for disbanding or amalgamating a regiment would be its record on recruitment and retention. The Cheshire regiment, the Staffordshire regiment and the 14th/20th King's Hussars have exceptional records on


recruitment and the retention of officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks. The Government's decisions have not taken appropriate account of that success.
The Army has been cut regularly for some 20 years and has increasingly been experiencing overstretch, which has been mentioned many times during this long debate. The interval between unaccompanied operational tours is supposed to be 24 months. Currently, from my research it falls between 12 and 15 months and surely that is overstretch.
I want to refer to the infantry and what is proposed for the Cheshire and Staffordshire regiments. The Cheshire regiment has such a good recruitment record that it provides recruits for other regiments. The proposed amalgamation of the Cheshire regiment with the Staffordshire regiment came as a complete surprise to both regiments and neither was consulted. What about consultation? Neither regiment wants the amalgamation. In my view, those two regiments are being sacrificed for others with poor records on recruitment and retention.
The two regiments are different in style, character and interests. The amalgamation would be like merging Liverpool football club with Stoke City football club, which would be thoroughly undesirable and unrequired. The proposed amalgamation makes no sense geographic-ally or demographically. The Staffordshire regiment is a midlands regiment and the Cheshire regiment is from the north-west. The area from Merseyside to Birmingham with a population of 11 million will be left with only three regiments. That compares with Lancashire and Cumbria with a population of just 1.8 million which will retain two regiments. What a waste of the best recruiting area in the country.
It is worth noting that in their proposals and the explanations for them the Government say that we can cope with the reduction from 55 battalions to 38. I doubt that because, in my view, no commitments have changed except that for the central region and already with 55 battalions we are suffering severe overstretch. If the options plan is driven through, it will produce an Army which will be too small to meet its commitments and will suffer from more overstretch than it suffers from today, which will not be ready for its primary role because most of the units of the rapid reaction corps will be away on other tasks and duties, which will not be capable of manning all its equipment because unit establishments will be too small, which will have no reserves for the unexpected because almost all available units will be somewhere on the roulement cycle and which will no longer be a credible deterrent, even as part of NATO, because divisions and brigades will always have men away on other tasks and will never be able to train at full strength. It will be smaller and less adequate because of outdated equipment, insufficient manpower and overstretch.
It is my strongly held opinion that, because of the volatile and unpredictable world situation, the Government should announce "Options for Change" as a target, aim or objective for the future. In central and eastern Europe we are witnessing an upsurge of nationalism. Despite constructive efforts to prevent it, there is a grave danger of a return to pre-1945 power

politics, and that has been mentioned by more than one hon. Member in the debate. The United Nations needs time to evolve to cope with the new world situation that it now faces. More time is needed to see how world power blocs develop and how the European Community will evolve in political and defence terms.
We are only too well aware that more resources are needed to cope with Northern Ireland. Our own resources are at a low strength, but the unexpected is always possible. We must restructure NATO, create and train the new rapid response corps and restructure our home base.
Sadly, I see the changes that the Government have proposed as a Treasury-driven exercise, perhaps a savings exercise, with little relevance to the situation that I see emerging in the world. If we proceed with the options plan, it will soon be clear that the British Army is no longer credible to meet its commitments or to deter anyone seriously because it lacks capability. The position and influence of the United Kingdom in the world, sadly, will therefore be weakened.
The dangers that I have mentioned can be avoided if the Government genuinely seek the views of the House, but to date they have not done so. We need to say that the first step towards achieving our objective is to reduce the Army to 130,000 by 1997. In the current situation, that is not insignificant. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastleigh and my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme suggested that we should increase the estimate by six battalions. I fully support that request because if that were done we could meet our responsibilities and deal with any unexpected event. Any further cuts would be damaging and irresponsible.
All my research and contacts show that the Army is not against change, but it deserves a proper and detailed defence review, which has been requested by hon. Members on both sides of the House and almost all the political parties represented here. I believe that this detailed defence review, and any changes that are made, should be based on accepted and clear criteria that are understood and acceptable to all those involved. Above all, surely, it makes no sense to amalgamate regiments such as the Cheshires and the Staffordshires, which would waste recruitment opportunities. I speak with considerable conviction and commitment when I say that there is every good reason and sense to leave highly successful regiments untouched.
I wish to associate myself entirely with the petition that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) presented last night on behalf of the people of Cheshire, which urged the Government to leave the Cheshire Regiment untouched. Perhaps it is not too late for the Government genuinely to consult the House on such an important matter and to state tonight that they are prepared sensibly to consider the representations that have been made and, if necessary, to amend the decisions that they have taken.

Mr. John McFall: When the Secretary of State announced more than a year ago that he would introduce "Options for Change", he said that the Army was going to be smaller but better. We now realise the truth—smaller and nothing else.
The problem is that there is no conception in the White Paper of how British forces are likely to be deployed in the


future. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee in July, he was asked, "Whom are we defending and against what?" He had no answer.
Most of the thinking in the White Paper is based on the threat from the Soviet Union. There is still a fixation with the Soviet Union. If there were still a serious risk of war, the White Paper could be criticised for cutting things too fast and too soon, but we all know that total war is fanciful and will not happen.
The problem is the new world disorder. How will we shape our defence requirements to meet the emerging pattern of disorder in the communist states of eastern Europe and elsewhere? The problem is illustrated by the need for safe havens in Iraq and the civil war in Yugoslavia, yet the Secretary of State for Defence and his Ministers have not mentioned that. The idea of being dragged into any messy internal conflict appals the military and ourselves, but when considering a coherent and rational defence policy for the future we cannot rule out the possibility, however remote, of western troops being part of a peacekeeping force. That, however, has not been addressed. The review will be complete only when forces have been restructured to reflect the present international situation. That omission is at the heart of the White Paper.
We know that after the changes there will be no Territorial Army parachute battalion north of Liverpool. Does that make sense? The Secretary of State is retaining all three regular battalions, but eliminating the Scottish battalion. That is at odds with his declaration of an enhanced role for the TA and of a smaller but better Army.
I have several reasons for making that point. I have received 200 petitions about the volunteer battalion from constituents. More pertinent, the former Lord Lieutenant of Dunbartonshire, a highly decorated man, Brigadier Alastair Pearson, wrote to me recently and told me that he raised that battalion in 1947 and was its first commanding officer for six and a half years. He is now its honorary colonel. He said that it would be a tragedy if the battalion were disbanded because he knows its value to the young men of Scotland and the country in general. It is illogical to eliminate that TA battalion and deny the Scottish people the opportunity to participate in it.
Those comments were reinforced by the managing director of one of the largest firms in my constituency, who wrote to the Secretary of State to explain his grievances. He said that, as a managing director, he had seen the 15th Parachute Battalion at work through its employer liaison activities—activities that had persuaded him to support the reserve forces. I suggest that the Secretary of State should reinstate that battalion. The managing director said that he was
at a loss to understand the disproportionate cuts proposed for it.
So are many of my constituents.
Reference has been made to Polaris nuclear submarines. Last November, I was the first to allege that there were cracks in the submarines. The Ministry of Defence pooh-poohed my view and said that there was nothing wrong. Months have passed and many newspapers have taken up the issue. The Ministry of Defence has now admitted that there are cracks.
Within the past few weeks, the Thames Television programme "This Week" described the submarines as being in trouble. One of the members of the

nuclear-powered warships safety committee, which vets such submarines, said, "We are not allowing those boats into foreign ports in case accidents occur." If those boats are denied entry into foreign ports because they are a possible danger, why are they tolerated here? Is not the possible danger in the United States or some European port the same as it is at home? Questions must be asked, particularly because of the authority of the statement made on "This Week".
The Secretary of State for Defence has not explained rationally why the number of nuclear submarines has been cut from 25 to 13—I do not suggest that there is a link with the matter which I just raised. What is the real reason for the cut? My colleagues and I on the Defence Select Committee are still puzzled.
A United States committee, chaired by Sidney Drell, reported on possible faults in Trident. Members of the Defence Select Committee went to America and were given a good briefing, although questions remain. When we returned to this country, the Ministry of Defence did not explain the Drell committee's comments and said that everything was being taken care of.
"Defense Week", a United States publication, of 29 July 1991, quotes Dr. Drell as saying that the Pentagon had still to convince him and his committee. He said:
We said the data was not there to make a judgement.
Dr. Drell said that the matter was still open. The Defence Select Committee said that the Ministry of Defence had not explained about the cracks in the nuclear submarines and that it should he more forthcoming in public and in private. It should also explain the Drell committee's comments.
According to "Defense Week",
The House fiscal 1992 defense authorization bill gave the Navy $15 million to undertake an analysis of all the Trident safety issues raised by the Drell report.
I ask the Minister to do the same and undertake to make a report available either to the Defence Select Committee or to the House. That is crucial.
Locally, I am concerned also about the magnetic treatment facility at Gareloch. The Ministry of Defence gave me notice that such a facility would be erected in the Clyde area, but now the proposal has been scrapped. Dumbarton district council has written to me. It is aggrieved at the Ministry's attitude. In replying to the council's inquiry, the Ministry said that compensation was paid to the contractor. The council told me that that compensation was believed to be some £15 million and that the Ministry described it as "pennies". That expenditure is a gross waste of public money. The project had been lauded by the Ministry. It was to be an environmentally sensitive project in the Clyde area. We now find that the project has been withdrawn after £15 million of public money has been spent. That is scandalous. Dumbarton district council and the general public require answers.
Further, Dumbarton district council asked me to raise some public safety issues. The council said:
As the system now to be adopted by the MOD involved the passing of strong electrical charges through the hull of submarines, there was a danger of warheads being detonated accidently as has been highlighted in the recent Drell Report".
That was subjective comment by the district council. However, it is incumbent on the Ministry of Defence to undertake an inquiry so that we can debate its conclusions.
The district council also said:


As dredging was taking place alongside the new berthing there could be a serious leaching of asbestos from an underground dump at the locus arising from the possible removal of a retaining wall which had been built to enclose the dump.
That was the view of a district council which is made up of all political parties. The Ministry of Defence should be courteous in replying to the council on that point.
My constituents have raised the issue of empty Ministry of Defence houses. The other day, a Rhu constituent said that 30 to 40 houses were lying empty. The Ministry should undertake fruitful negotiations with the district council. The homeless of Dumbarton district, whether service people or ordinary constituents, would be better served if the houses were utilised. That is an important point.
Several of my constituents are involved in the Yarrow shipyard. One of them, the vice-convenor of the trade union side, wrote to me. Yarrow is the largest employer in Strathclyde, employing 5,000 people. The last batch of orders was lost in December 1989 and 645 people will be made redundant this December. The type 23 case for Yarrow is strong, because Yarrow designed the frigate for the Ministry of Defence, specifically to meet British needs. The yard is at a critical point.
Over the past 15 years, £55 million has been invested, £8.5 million of it in a modular construction facility, and £1.7 million on upgrading design and drafting computer graphics. The work force is skilled, with only 5 per cent. being declared unskilled. Yarrow is the largest manufacturer in Strathclyde. As the company with the largest skills base in Strathclyde, we can ill-afford it if that yard loses contracts. I make this case on behalf of my constituents and those employed by the yard, in the light of the good work that Yarrow has done in the past.
During the past year, several issues were raised before the Defence Select Committee. Will the Minister explain the continuing rationale for a United Kingdom tactical air-to-surface missile? For whom is it intended? Let me put the question simply: is it intended for use against the Poles, the Ukrainians or the Russians under Yeltsin, or is it intended for resolving regional disputes in the Balkans or for a future Saddam Hussein? I put those questions because there has been no adequate explanation of why, if there has been a de-escalation in nuclear weapons, the Government are determined to go ahead with TASM.
If the Government say that they are withdrawing TASM, they will make a crucial political point. If TASM were used, it would be indefensible in terms of the Chernobyl-style poisoning of the continent that would result, affecting innocent and guilty alike. It is said that it is intended for use on the mainland of Europe. Given the tremendous strides that have been made in nuclear disarmament in Europe, aided and abetted by Presidents Bush and Gorbachev, it ill-behoves the Government to maintain that they will go ahead. All the evidence points to the opposite conclusion from that reached by the Government.
In paragraph 322 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991", the Government say that they would not support amending the partial test ban treaty because they believe that
effective deterrence is necessary to prevent war",
and that
our nuclear weapons must be kept $ up to date.

I quote two of many experts, Hans Bethe and Noris Bradbury, both former directors of the United States nuclear testing laboratory at Los Alamos. They contest the assertion that nuclear weapons need to be tested to the point of nuclear explosion. They say that it is sufficient to test all the non-nuclear components of a nuclear weapon to ensure that it will function effectively. Those critics maintain that the need to conduct nuclear explosions derives from a desire to develop new types of nuclear warheads, "third generation" weapons, including, for example, the strategic defence initiative's X-ray laser. If the intention is simply to maintain assured nuclear deterrence, nuclear test explosions are not essential. Again, the Government should be making a big political point by supporting the treaty.
Another issue is the United Nations arms register. It is an important point which the Government should take on board. In the past year or two, we have seen increasing, perhaps exponential, arms sales to the middle east and to Africa. Recently, I looked up the table of third-world countries that received arms in the past 15 years. Eight out of the top 10 are in the middle east. Despite the Gulf war, and despite the presence of Saddam Hussein, we are still going ahead with selling those weapons. We need a firm United Nations arms register which is not just post hoc, as it is at the moment, but which should include details of arms production as well as transfer, and for which there should be a United Nations verification agency. It is extremely important that we have that.
For one reason or another, in the past 10 years we have seen a dramatic failure of our foreign policy. The Government have had to go to war twice—the Falklands and the Gulf. Twice we have sent troops abroad to fight an enemy who is equipped with British, western and European hardware—among them French Mirages and British destroyers. That is unacceptable. The Government should go ahead with the comprehensive test ban treaty, with the United Nations arms register and with all the major political gestures that I mentioned so that we do not have to send British troops anywhere in the world in vain a third time.

Sir Charles Morrison: The collapse of the Warsaw pact, the main cause and main objective of defence policy and defence expenditure since the pact was signed, has, without doubt, created a real and hoped for opportunity for savings on defence. However, it is worth noting and may be salutary to recall that it was the continuing and growing cost of defence and sophisticated modern weaponry, and the effect of that on the economy of the USSR, apart from the firm stance of NATO, which ultimately led to the break-up of the Warsaw pact.
Be that as it may, British defence expenditure over the past 45 years has helped to achieve the main objective of removing the threat from the Soviet bloc. None the less, that does not mean that worldwide peace has broken out, nor that global stability holds sway. In some ways, there is more instability now, stemming from the fragmentation of the Soviet empire, than there was when there was an obvious and controlled bloc in our view.
That point was made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), although I have to admit that I was somewhat bemused by his speech. I am sorry that he is not in his place now. He started by deploring, very


properly, inadequate preparation for warfare prior to 1939. He then went on to talk about instability and ended by saying that we should cut our expenditure still more. That would be a strange attitude in the light of the world scene.
Yugoslavia may not be unique. No one can foretell what developments there will be in the Russian republics. Elsewhere, the middle east is hardly a haven of happiness and joy. In many parts of the world, strife is only just below the surface, and here at home we still have the major responsibility of Northern Ireland. In that regard especially, whatever sophisticated weaponry we may have, it is literally soldiers on the ground who are most important. Yet it is now that it is proposed that the Army should be cut by 25 per cent.
Just after the Falklands, I congratulated the then Secretary of State for Defence on the outcome. His reply was to the effect, "Do not congratulate me; congratulate the armed forces for their remarkable ability to improvise." Improvisation and a little luck on the part of the armed forces have probably got this country out of many a scrape. However, situations can develop only too easily in which that is impossible, and in which the Army is overstretched to breaking point. In a world that continues to be dangerous, the Government must err on the side of caution. A cut of 25 per cent. does not reflect that, so my first point is that the cuts go too far, too fast and too soon.
My second point involves the nature of the cuts. In his statement on 23 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that they required
painful choices and difficult decisions."—[Official Report, 23 July 1991, Vol. 195, c. 1038.]
My right hon. Friend has never spoken a truer word, and I sympathise with him on the dilemmas that he faced.
In my county there is anguish that the Duke of Edinburgh's regiment, already an amalgamation, is to be amalgamated again. We have heard again and again m the course of the debate that elsewhere the anguish is repeated. In Scotland, there is a crescendo of rage and frustration.
I will refer especially to the Household Division. At a time of change, there is no reason why the regiments that the Household Division contains should be exempt from change, but as there is change, it must be remembered that those regiments have a dual role, first, as fighting regiments and, secondly, in respect of London ceremonial and public duties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) properly referred. All informed opinion is that there will have to be cuts in London ceremonial and pageantry if the proposed cuts go ahead. Such a consequence would be a result of an incredibly short-sighted view of London ceremonial by the Ministry of Defence.
The English tourist board has told me that the value of overseas tourism in London is £4.3 billion per annum. According to a recent survey, almost half of all those visitors want to see some aspect of London ceremonial. Even if the changing of the guard is retained, other forms of ceremonial, such as the Tower Guard, will go and even the trooping the colour will be at risk, reducing enormously the tourist attraction of London in comparison with many other cities either in the United Kingdom or, more importantly, elsewhere in the world, especially in Europe.
It is difficult to persuade oneself that the proposed changes to the Household Cavalry and Foot Guards have been properly thought through. It is far easier to convince oneself that they have not.
The Blues and Royals were amalgamated only a few years ago and that amalgamation proved to be a great success. On this occasion, the Life Guards would have been very happy with an outward amalgamation. That would have retained two Household Cavalry service regiments from which to assign men to the mounted squadrons in London. Instead, there is to be an anomalous two-cap-badge service regiment, and it is generally believed that that regiment will have insufficient men to train for and to sustain the mounted ceremonial squadrons in London. In short, the proposals for the Household Cavalry Regiment combined or amalgamated—however one refers to it—are impractical.
An outward amalgamation for the Life Guards is apparently now impossible, but I understand that it is proposed that there should be a corps reconnaissance regiment in the Territorial Army. Much as I admire the Territorial Army, which will be debated later in the year, or early next year, I question whether the provision of such a regiment is an appropriate role for it. Surely a reconnaissance regiment—above all at corps level—should be immediately available to the corps commander as reconnaissance should precede any action. It is unlikely that the TA could provide such immediacy. Surely the role should be filled by a regular regiment. If that point is conceded, it seems to me that that regular regiment should be the senior cavalry regiment of the British Army—the Life Guards.
On 18 September, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces wrote to me in reply to a letter that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 8 August about the planned changes in the Household Division. My right hon. Friend said:
the concept of the combined regiments originated from the Life Guards and the Blues and Royals themselves".
If I may say so, that is bunk—and that is putting it mildly. My right hon. Friend went on to say that the combined regiment
is seen by all concerned as the best way forward for the two original regiments".
I do not know who are the "all concerned" to whom my right hon. Friend has spoken. They are none of the "all concerned" to whom I have spoken, and they are certainly not past or present members of the regiments affected.
On the other hand, my right hon. Friend also said that the basic structure of the new Household Cavalry combined armoured reconnaissance regiment would consist of four squadrons. As I understand it, that means four sabre squadrons plus one headquarters squadron—that is, five squadrons. I then asked my right hon. Friend what the comparison was between that regiment—the new regiment to be formed—and the other new regiment to be formed from the 13th/18th Royal Hussars and the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars, and whether they would be similar to the Life Guards and Blues and Royals regiments. In his reply, my right hon. Friend said that the new combined 13th/18th and 15th/19th regiment
will also fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role and will do so with four squadrons.
I suppose that, again, that means five squadrons. I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that that is correct. If it is, what it actually means is that the two armoured reconnaissance regiments between them will have 10


squadrons—eight sabre squadrons and two headquarters squadrons. It would not be stretching things too far to have a regular corps reconnaissance regiment, which I mentioned just now, and to have the other two regiments revert to their normal size. We should then have three regiments, each of which would have four squadrons, making up 12 squadrons all told. In other words, there would be an addition of only two squadrons over and above what the Ministry of Defence is currently planning. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point again.
Meanwhile, whereas the Army is to be cut by 25 per cent., the three senior Foot Guard regiments are to be cut by 50 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has already said. The overall cuts in the five regiments of the Foot Guards amount to 37.5 per cent. I am also told that the retention of only five battalions instead of eight makes the Foot Guards arms plot—the movement of battalions between London and operational tasks outside it—impossible to manage. Thus there is no hope of giving guardsmen sufficient variety as between their London duties and their duties outside, and that is almost certain to have a very serious effect on recruiting. It seems to me that that is an odd way to sustain what are arguably the finest regiments in the British Army. Therefore, I implore my right hon. Friend to review his cuts and the way in which they are being imposed.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I was a signatory of an amendment to the defence estimates which, tragically, has not been selected and will therefore not be voted on later this evening. I shall nevertheless try to express the view behind it. We are asked to approve defence estimates involving 4 per cent. of gross national product. Nearly £24 billion is due to be spent by this country on defence. I support a position which would lead to a substantial cut in arms expenditure at least to the European average. That alone would release £7.5 billion. The money could be well spent initially on financing arms conversion so that those working in defence industries are not thrown on to the jobs scrap heap. It could also be used to expand and improve health services, education and housing, and to deal with the myriad social problems afflicting people in Britain.
I also think that we should look at things on a wider world scale. I quote from "World Military and Social Expenditures 1991" by Ruth Legar Sevard. She and many other colleagues have put together a series of statistics related to the problems facing the world which show that 100 million people are homeless, 900 million are illiterate, nearly 1 billion are chronically underfed and a further 1 billion are certainly suffering from malnourishment. We cannot be satisfied with a world afflicted with so many problems if all that we are doing is to pile on it ever-increasing amounts of arms expenditure.
Britain has suffered from the cold war. Like many other hon. Members, my experience of growing up was dominated by the cold war. Those of us who advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament throughout that period were always told that it was absolutely impossible. Yet unilateral action is what has been taken by Gorbachev and Bush—and it has met with a response: there has been a

significant reduction in the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles and a stand-off of many of the more locally ranged nuclear weapons. That unilateral action has had a considerable impact.
We must also assess what we shall be doing from now on. I never believed that NATO was a particularly necessary organisation because I did not accept that NATO represented more than a hot pursuit of cold war. Surely now is the time not for a reassessment of NATO to give it a political, and an increased out-of-area, role, but for the disbanding of NATO—an end to a military alliance that has cost so much and damaged so much of the social infrastructure of countries that are its members. The Warsaw pact has gone and I hear military planners say, "Where is the threat now? Why must we keep nuclear weapons?" Nuclear weapons are supposed to be a deterrent, but they have not prevented wars from taking place in central America. They did not stop the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war or the numerous other wars that have taken place around the world—wars in which 20 million people have died since 1945.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: They are still dying in Iraq. According to the university of Illinois, kids in Iraq are dying at a rate of 500 a day. Does not that infringe the 1989 international protocol on children and protocol 1 of the 1977 agreement on human rights?

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall come to the situation in Iraq in a moment and I shall respond then to the point that he made.
I have a question to ask those who now advocate that we should continue to hold nuclear weapons and those who advocate the construction of the Trident submarine. At the moment, there are 51,000 nuclear warheads in the world. There have been 1,814 nuclear tests since 1945, all of which have resulted in some degree of fallout and all of which have caused illness and harm. The serious nuclear explosion at Chernobyl will cause 2,000 deaths from cancer across northern Europe. The use of nuclear weapons is absolutely inconceivable and that was described graphically by Bruce Kent at a meeting that I attended recently. He said that firing a nuclear weapon was like firing a rifle containing two bullets: one which comes out of the barrel and the other which comes out of the back of the rifle and shoots the rifle holder through the head. That is the logic of nuclear weapons.
According to the defence estimates the Trident submarine programme is due to cost £9.8 billion. I deplore that and I believe that the programme should be stopped. I would like to think that on the first day that a Labour Government take office they will immediately cancel the fourth Trident submarine and deCommission the other three.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend should be careful with his figures. They refer to the production cost. They do not take into account the through-life costs, which are double that figure.

Mr. Corbyn: I have obviously understated the case because I am cautious.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I have a press release from Greenpeace which states that the cost of Trident is in excess of £23 billion. That comprises the Government's capital cost of £9.8 billion with an additional £2.5 billion


of identifiable capital costs and lifetime and decommis-sioning costs of another £10.67 billion. That amounts to more than £23 billion. That is the true cost of Trident.

Mr. Corbyn: We would do better to spend £23 billion feeding the world's hungry and to prevent the preventable deaths of young children around the world instead of constructing a nuclear missile system. We could also release the undoubted technical brilliance of many of the people who design and build those submarines and allow them to do something much more useful.
I make no apology for the fact that throughout my adult life I have been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I intend to continue to be a CND member because I want a nuclear-free world and significantly less to be spent on armaments than is being spent at the moment. We cannot continue to be blind to the realities in the rest of the world and to spend such huge amounts on high technology armaments.
The defence estimates produce significant cuts in the number of soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel. However, they envisage enormous expenditure on high technology weapons. We urgently need an arms conversion programme. We also need real action to eliminate the arms trade, which is the most bloodthirsty trade in the world. Between 1968 and 1988, $588 billion worth of arms were exported, many of them to repressive regimes, and many of the weapons were used to repress people who were demanding social justice for themselves. I hope that we can end the arms trade once and for all.
I refer now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I visited Kurdistan in August as a guest of the Kurdistan Front. I was struck by the beauty of the place and also by the stench of death that hangs over the country. That stench does not stem simply from the Gulf war—appalling as everything to do with that war has been. I did not support the war and I have not changed my opinions in that regard. The stench emanated also from the Iran-Iraq war.
I visited a scrap metal yard beside the road where various people were trying to make a little money by selling bits of scrap. When I looked at the markings on the shell cases that they were selling, I saw that they came from China, the Soviet Union, the United States, Israel, South Africa, Brazil, arid from other places all over the world. We can imagine the arms manufacturers and dealers who had made a fortune out of the killing in that war.
I visited a hill on which possibly 100,000 people died in the war of attrition between Iran and Iraq. Kurdish conscripts on one side fought Kurdish conscripts on the other and one useless advance followed another, just like the battles in the first world war when the generals had the same mentality. That again was a product of the arms trade. Western Europe was quite happy to lend money to both sides throughout the Iran-Iraq war and happy to make profits out of that awful war. At the end of the day, a foreign policy initiative must be taken.
The Gulf war has not yet produced a solution to the problems in the region. The Palestinians do not have a homeland, the Gulf is polluted and the oil fires are still burning. The Kurdish people do not have security or peace. In fact, the Turkish air force is now attacking Kurdish positions in Iraq. I visited the village of Xerezok a week after it was bombed by the Turkish air force. It was claimed that the village was a Turkish PKK base. It was not. It was a village of 20 families who had returned to

their homes after being driven out by Saddam's force two years ago. They had returned to plant crops, build a school and live there. One day a helicopter flew over and they waved to it because they thought that it was bringing them medicines and food. It flew a few miles from the village and American-built jet fighters screamed over the hill and bombed the village with phosphorus bombs which are still there and are still live. The children, however, are dead and are buried in a graveyard alongside a wheat field.
I am led to believe that the coalition forces are operating air security. I cannot believe that Turkish air force planes are taking off without the knowledge—and if it is with the knowledge, it must be with the agreement —of the United States and British military personnel in the region. If they are taking off without their knowledge and agreement, what is the agreement with Turkey all about? If they are taking off with the agreement of the British and Americans, that is a disgusting spectacle. People who have suffered enough over the past 70 years should not be expected to suffer any more.
In the southern part of Iraq I spoke to a fine person from the Quaker peace mission who had spent three months in Iraq. He had no brief for Saddam Hussein, for the Ba'ath party or for the repression. However, he identified the arms sales to Saddam and the loans and support that he received which made him the strong man that he is while children die because of a lack of food and medicine. For humanity's sake, we should consider the needs of those people as they die in that region.
Wars are basically caused by instability, which arises because of inequality and poverty. Are we going to continue to export arms to corrupt regimes to repress people who demand social justice? Are we going to continue to deny the Palestinians, the Kurds and so many others what we want for ourselves—the right to self-determination and the ability to live a decent life?
Tonight we will sleep in beds and go home without feeling hungry. That will not be the case for millions of people elsewhere. Children will be dying and we are allowing the arms race to continue, the arms stockpiles to grow and the vast expenditure on high-tech weapons to continue when that brilliance could be used to give people a decent standard of living instead of the fear of yet another war.

Mr. Michael Colvin: While I accept the principle of the restructuring of our armed forces to take account of the peace dividend, I, like many hon. Members in this debate, question the wisdom of reducing the Army by 40,000 to only 116,000 personnel. That is too much and it is too soon.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that, as a result of international events and reorganisation, the infantry's commitment would be one third less. That may be so in peacetime, but what about in wartime? I am not surprised that the word "overstretch" is used most in criticism of my right hon. Friend's proposals. Thirty-eight battalions may be enough in peacetime—I doubt it—but they will not preserve the peace unless they are also seen to be enough in wartime.
The heaviest flak directed at the Government Front Bench has been on infantry regimental reorganisation. I can understand why. The scrapping of years of history and tradition is an emotional matter because of the damage


which it can do to identity, kinship, morale and, of course, as a result, recruitment. My right hon. Friend intends to amalgamate the Royal Hampshire regiment with the Queen's regiment, to form one regiment of two battalions. We in Hampshire cannot understand why we cannot keep the two regiments at one battalion strength each. I should like an answer to that point.
Neither the Royal Hampshire regiment, about 90 per cent. of which comprises Hampshire men, nor the Queen's regiment, which has long lost any county identity, is happy about the proposed merger. However, if the merger proceeds, the new regiment must be a true partnership and not a takeover by the Queen's regiment, which currently has three battalions. We want the Hampshire name to be retained in the name of the new regiment and its emblem to be retained in the cap badge and other insignia. By preserving two separate regiments we will not save an additional battalion for the British Army—more is the pity —but the Army Board should have another think about the proposed amalgamation.
Ministers repeatedly refer to the need for our forces to be flexible and mobile to fulfil our new commitment to NATO and elsewhere. I welcome the creation of NATO's new rapid reaction corps, led, as it will be, by Britain, which will contribute an air mobile brigade and, perhaps, an airborne brigade. Our aim is clear but our method is not, which is why I now refer to air transport—tactical and strategic, helicopters and fixed wing.
Since I last raised the subject of support helicopters for the Army we have had time to assess our operations in the Gulf war, when more than half our total support helicopter force was deployed to support only one armoured division—that is, one fifth of our Army—and still the numbers had to be made up by pinching 18 Sea Kings from the Royal Navy. We intend to dedicate only 35 Gazelles and Lynx to our solitary Air Mobile Brigade, while American, French or German equivalent formations would have about 100 mixed attack, reconnaissance and transport helicopters. "Air mobile" is hardly the right name for a military formation which looks as though it may have the greatest difficulty in leaving the ground.
I support the Defence Select Committee's view that the Secretary of State must stop prevaricating and confirm the order for 25 EH101 utility support helicopters, which was first placed as long ago as April 1987.
Longer-haul air transport is provided by our 62 Hercules C130 aircraft. Purchased from the United States more than 20 years ago, they will need to be replaced in the mid-1990s. In the meantime, Marshalls of Cambridge do a superb job keeping them flying. What is the Government's thinking about a replacement? I refer to the improved Lockheed C130J, for which Lockheed would welcome British partners. British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Dowty, Lucas, GEC and Marconi are bidding to join a consortium. If the time scale is good, the aircraft would be ready at the right time. We want our companies to have a share in the development of that aircraft so that we can benefit from its sale to third countries.
What is the Ministry of Defence thinking in terms of the future large aircraft, or the so-called FLA, which was proposed by the Euroflag group? The problem is that it will be expensive. It may involve European countries; but

it will not be ready until the year 2003. Because of our commitment to the rapid reaction corps we need an answer to that question.
Another replacement that will be needed in the late 1990s will be for our Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. Again, the choice is between a United States aircraft and a European: the modified P3 Orion from Lockheed, because the P7 was cancelled, and the French Atlantique. Hon. Members would like to hear what the Government have to say about that.
The White Paper tries to explain how service personnel and those who are being made redundant can join the property owning democracy, one of the great achievements of the 12 years of Conservative Government. The Government's task force is studying options for extending the right to buy, in conjunction with the Housing Corporation and the voluntary housing movement. I hope that the scheme will be flexible. Retiring military personnel may not want to buy or live the rest of their lives in their military quarters, even if they are allowed to buy. We need a flexible scheme with swapping arrangements with local housing authorities so that military personnel can retire where they want to set up their homes.
The Government should liaise closely with the Royal British Legion on housing and on resettlement courses. I question whether a 28-day resettlement course is adequate to prepare an ex-service man for a civilian career.
My constituency contains many married quarters. In all, the Ministry of Defence owns 96,000 married quarters and rents a further 25,000 overseas. That means that it has a total of 121,000 married quarters, yet there are only 28,000 married personnel. I know that many of those quarters are occupied by civilians, but there is obviously a surplus of military accommodation which should be disposed of so that it can be put to greater use. My constituency has a crying need for more of what I would term "social housing" for homeless families. Perhaps the Ministry of Defence could think about leasing some of its surplus accommodation, especially housing that is in need of repair, to the local authorities to help them to deal with their pressing needs.
There have been many references to the future of the Household brigade, and especially to the Foot Guards, three battalions of which will go into so-called "suspended animation"—whatever that may mean. The Foot Guards perform their operational and ceremonial duties in an exemplary fashion and succeed in combining both duties with great skill. That variety has always been of immense value, but given that they are stationed in the centre of London, they have a third role to play. It relates to the security of the capital of our country. They are here to deal with the unexpected. As has already been said, they will be stretched in trying to combine their ceremonial duties with their operational role and there could be a case——

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Colvin: I am afraid that I cannot because I am watching the clock.
There could be a case for including the Foot Guards in our air mobile force so that they could be lifted in and out of central London by helicopters—provided that we have the helicopters that we all want.
In conclusion, despite the criticism from the Back Benches and the calls for Ministers to think again, the


defence of the realm is still as safe in Conservative hands as it would be unsafe in the hands of a Labour Government whose only firm commitment would be to lop £6,000 million off the defence budget.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not know whether it is any comfort to Ministers, but, in candour, and as one who comes from the recruiting area of the Royal Scots, in my judgment it is sensible to merge the King's Own Scottish Borderers with the Royal Scots. I hope that the two regiments will enjoy the success of other amalgamations.
In view of the time constraints, I shall put my speech in question form.
First, hon. Members seem to assume that the Gulf war was a success, but 4.5 million children are suffering in Iraq and are dying at the rate of 500 a day. Those are the figures produced by the University of Illinois. There are horrifying stories from the Quakers and Jim Fine, from Oxfam and Mark Turpin, and from Critical Eye who have returned from the area.
Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister the following questions about sanctions.
What is the legal position in the committing of the international crime of genocide in violation of the international convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide of 1948?
The second question is also legal: what is the position in relation to the universal declaration of human rights of 1948, which this country has signed?
Thirdly, what is the position in relation to the 1989 convention on the rights of the child, which this country has signed?
Fourthly, what is the legal position about the systematic violation of the special protection of international humanitarian law that was guaranteed to children by the fourth Geneva convention and the additional protocol of 1977? It is reported that the conditions for children are inhuman, degrading, cruel and genocidal. We must distinguish between the humanitarian problems and any other problems that may exist which I do not have time to go into relating to chemical, biological and, indeed, nuclear weapons. The bombing of Tuweitha should at least be monitored for radioactivity.
What is the Government's position on the termination of the international economic embargo and all forms of bilateral economic sanctions? Massive humanitarian relief is needed. That is not only the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and several others on the Labour Back Benches but the considered judgment of the most senior officials of the United Nations who in name were responsible for organising the force that went to the Gulf.
Precisely what is the Government's attitude to the problems that have been clearly identified and the need to raise some of the sanctions on Iraqi oil sales, identified in particular by Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan? We as members of the United Nations are going against precisely some of the assessments that the United Nations has made. Do the Government accept those UN reports or do they not?

Dr. John Reid: Debates such as this always engender in me a certain amount of humility at not only the learning and academic knowledge but the practical experience that hon. Members on both sides bring to them. It is utterly impossible to cover all the points raised by all those who have spoken tonight but perhaps I can mention one or two.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) brought a great depth of knowledge and practical experience to the debate. He dealt with the problems of the Merchant Navy and its decline and with the Territorial Army, which has been mentioned by several other hon. Members.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) always graces us with his presence on these occasions and it always turns out to be worthwhile. He showed a great deal of insight and gave valued advice on the arms trade, arms production and the role of the United Nations. Above all, he dealt with the definition or redefinition of security—an issue which was patently missing from the speeches made by Ministers but about which I hope to say something tonight.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) pointed out that he had called for a review. He showed that all wisdom is not monopolised on this side of the House. He also questioned the validity of Falklands defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) pointed out the lack of strategy in the course pursued by the Government, the overstretch and the importance of cap badges. He also gave us the view from Nepal, following a visit there, on the decimation of the Gurkhas. The point was raised by several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who usually brings his wisdom on these matters to such debates.
The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) and for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) all criticised, and they were by no means exclusive, the depth of cuts in the infantry. That is another issue which I shall mention tonight.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) dwelt on an issue which we have perhaps passed over too lightly on these occasions. They spoke about the personal problems of housing, homelessness and redundancy faced by service men and women.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) usefully pointed out the complexity of the new risks and the absolute necessity for complexity of response. He mentioned the key role of NATO and the dangers of overstretch and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), he raised some serious questions about the number of infantry battalions that have been cut. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton was the only Member to ask serious questions about the safety of nuclear submarines. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), in a speech which I think we call spirited on these occasions, referred in almost biblical language to the four fallacies of Ministers. He gave a sterling defence of the Scottish regiments and condemned the ill-thought-out action and obstinacy of Ministers. [Interruption.] I see that he is now in his place. The debate has been worthwhile if only to see the broad front constituted by the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for


Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who last night spoke in similar spirited language in defence of the Scottish regiments.
The one thing that every contributor had in common was an attempt to deal with change. There are periods in history when the rate of change alters dramatically. It is always difficult to know, except in retrospect, when that rate of change goes from what mathematicians would call the arithmetical to the geometrical progression, or what philosophers would call from the quantitative to the qualitative change. That is the nature of the type of analysis that we are all trying to undertake. As I have said, it is easier in retrospect.
Hegel, who, may I say for the benefit of Tory Members, was a German philosopher, said that the owl of Minerva spreads his wings only at the coming of the dusk. Unlike mathematicians and philosophers, we are not detached observers of these changes; we are participants in them. We hope that we are active participants.
Although this is difficult, there is widespread recognition that we are living in one of those periods of history that future generations will look back on and perhaps even give the nomenclature "revolutionary". It is a watershed. The continent of Europe, which for most of the post-war period appeared to be on the brink of disaster, now appears to be on the brink of lasting peace. Whether in retrospect we shall be praised by future generations for taking the challenge of those opportunities —[Interruption.]—or whether we shall be condemned— [Interruption.] If the Minister does not stop interrupting me, I may give him what we in Glasgow call Harthill Latin and I shall explain to him later what that is. As he is now being courteous enough to keep quiet, I shall continue. Whether we shall be condemned for having missed that opportunity or praised for taking it remains to be seen. Either way, it is important for all those involved in the debate about the future of European and global security to be aware of the burden which is being placed on all our shoulders.
The burden has been placed most particularly on the shoulders of Ministers. Sadly, they have proven incapable of shaping up to the task. [Interruption.] I expected more of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, given their previous relish in playing defenders of the realm and their much-vaunted military background. I thought that we would get a little of the three Cs—control, command and communication. Instead, we have had from the Secretary of State the three Ds—dozing, dithering and debilitation. He seems incapable of facing up to the challenges. During the whole debate his only firm promise has been, "We will not change our mind. There will not be a review." He had better the Secretary of State for Scotland. Last night, when the Secretary of State for Scotland was questioned about the regiments, in particular whether the Government had decided, whether there would be a change and whether there would be a review—this appeared in this morning's Glasgow Herald—he said that these things
are produced every year and over the next two or three years I have no doubt that the decisions announced by Tom King will be reviewed.
As I said, the rate of change has gone from arithmetical to geometrical.
I have news for the Secretary of State for Scotland. Tom King, whom he quoted there, will not be Secretary of

State for Defence for the next two or three years, so if there is any review it will be carried out by—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bill Walker."]

Mr. Bill Walker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is one of the more articulate members of the Opposition Front-Bench team and what he says frequently makes sense. Can he now tell us what is the Labour party's position on defence, because we have waited for all of two days to find out and I am still waiting?

Dr. Reid: Let me be absolutely straight. It has been said before,
We do not have the advice which is available in Government from professional advisers; we do not know what the world situation … will be when we come to office; and before acting we should want to consult our allies.
That is not my quote; it is from "The Right Approach" published by the Conservative Central Office prior to the election in 1979.
We intend to go further than the Conservatives. We are going public and we have told everyone in the House that we will have a full defence review within the first year of a Labour Government. If hon. Members require further elucidation they should refer to the expansive section of our policy that was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) last night. [Interruption.] I note that the Secretary of State is attempting to interrupt with the courage derived from the collective ministerial enclave around him.
Although I may criticise the Secretary of State, it must be said that he has received little help from his Ministers. Last night we had a marvellous statement from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement which covered interesting defence matters such as the environment and the citizens charter. At one stage I thought that local government finance would be mentioned, but the only news we got last night was that we are to charter a boat from the Norwegians. That exciting new concept of rent-a-navy was slipped in at the end of the debate.
The much-vaunted speech today from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was supposed to give us all the announcements heralded by the Secretary of State. However, as far as I understand it, his speech amounted to an order for a project design for Fearless and Intrepid at some stage in the near future with some further announcement to be made next March.
The Minister of State, for the Armed Forces, who is to speak after me, is to speak about matters affecting personnel. I do not intend to pre-empt his remarks and I trust that the trailer of his speech, which suggests that he will deal with the great problem of housing for the armed services, is correct. I would welcome some move on that. In July, when I questioned the right hon. Gentleman about it, no action had been taken and therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement of substance tonight.
The Minister, whether on the issue of housing, compensation or post-traumatic stress disorder—eventu-ally the Minister was good enough to see me and to take action on that—makes a rod for his own back by having to be dragged, reluctantly, to deal with such issues. At the end of the day he does deals with them but he does himself a disservice by appearing reluctant to do so. That creates


the type of confusion and bitterness that arose at various times during the calls for compensation for those unfortunate soldiers who lost their legs.
The Secretary of State has given us the slogan "smaller but better". I understand that in the civil service—I have heard this third hand only because the civil service and the Ministry of Defence do not leak—that slogan is better known as "smaller now, better at some stage in the indefinite future". In "Options for Change" the Government managed to combine change without options, conclusions without military analysis, restructur-ing without review and an end without a strategy—all in the same package. In the process the Government have managed to combine in opposition to them the opposition parties, the defence industry, the British armed forces. the public and their Back Benchers, not to mention the Select Committee.
It would take a politician of tremendous ingenuity starting off from a position of strength to manage to fight on five fronts in the same political war. The Secretary of State, however, has managed to do that. He has built the broadest front in opposition to him of anyone in Parliament. Perhaps that is because, as the Select Committee pointed out, the Government just do not have a strategy. The nearest that they came to it was last night in three paragraphs of the Secretary of State's speech. That speech came 18 months after the Government started the process of restructuring and six months after they finished that process.
What sort of Government is it who first make the changes and only then analyse the reasons for the changes? That is not strategic thinking; it is ex-post-facto rationalisation. If we are talking about strategy, the basis from which we should have been operating all this time, the threat from the east, which has traditionally been defined in terms of intention and capability, has all but disappeared. Admittedly that threat may not have disappeared on the flanks and there is a problem about the dispersal of the control of nuclear weapons, but the conventional threat from the east has all but disappeared.
In its place, the very process of Soviet imperial disintegration which has reduced the traditional threat has given rise to new risks and problems. They include ethnic tensions, nationalisms, border disputes, the resurgence of historic antagonisms, forced and voluntary migration and terrorism—and that is only in eastern and central Europe.
It is in the context of that redefined threat or risk that we need a redefinition of security, the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. There must be a much wider definition of security than defence proper. The increased complexity of the problem requires an increased complexity of response. Security must now include political contact and dialogue, economic aid and military hardware.
As for defence proper, being the pure military element of that security, the nature of the task confronting us— intervention, peace-keeping and mobility included—rath-er than diminishing the case for infantry, enhances it out of all proportion. Had there been a strategic review analysing the threat before we began restructuring the British armed forces, the infantry battalions would have been in a much better position, bolstered not by ideology or history or even by local support, but by the nature of the threat and the roles that we wished the armed forces to carry out.

Mr. George Walden: I am impressed by the vigour that the hon. Gentleman is showing in the defence of this country now that the main threat to the country has passed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap".] It was necessary for me to make that extremely important point. Outside the middle east, can the hon. Gentleman be more precise about from where in his perception the threat to Britain will come in the reasonably near future?

Dr. Reid: The people I represent and the communities in my part of the world are the very people who for centuries have given their lives in the defence of Britain. If anyone has strategically sold out this country, from the Philbys, Blunts and Burgesses, they have been people from the hon. Gentleman's background rather than from my background.
In answering his substantive question, may I say that I referred to eastern and central Europe and anarchic disintegration. Later I shall refer to some of the more global issues with which he may be concerned. First, I wish to deal with regimental restructuring. I have explained why I think the infantry battalions would have come off better. How can I respect a speech from a Secretary of State who says that the big lesson of the Gulf war is that logistics are important? If the Romans had known that, they could have conquered an empire. I am glad at least to see that the Secretary of State, 2000 years after Caesar, has independently reached the same conclusion. How can I take him seriously?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Dr. Reid: We are very tight for time and I am anxious to make progress.
Perhaps the prime example of the incompetence of the Government has been in terms of regimental restructuring. We urged them not to proceed without a review. I asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to publish the criteria. Nobody will be popular if regiments are being closed down, but at least the decision can be seen to be open and based on military criteria. It would have been defensible. But the Minister refused to do that, so no wonder he was inundated with angry lobbyists yesterday, for people do now know the basis on which some regiments are being executed and others reprieved. No wonder they suspect that decisions are being based on Treasury or local political considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) today outlined the Government's abysmal incompetence in relation to the whole question of procurement. Anyone who has read successive Select Committee reports will know that the Government's procurement policy can probably be summed up in three words: oversight, overdue or overbudget. That has been the Select Committee story for the past few years.
It seems that the British armed forces have been supplied with a dearth of almost everything except excuses. I find this incredible. I see that the Secretary of State is protesting. I am sure that it is not entirely his fault that we have a new class of submarine whose missile doors cannot be opened without flooding, and Tornados that have to go around with cement in their nose cones because they have no radar; I am sure that it is not entirely his fault that the budget has been exceeded by £21,000 million. He must, however, take some of the responsibility. All we have had are excuses. I am expecting a statement from the right hon. Gentleman any day now, telling us that cavalry supplies


have been cut to one spur apiece on the ground that, if the men can get one side of the horse going, the other side will probably follow. That is the kind of logic that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman.
Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State is prepared to applaud the United States for assisting its industry to diversify? The right hon. Gentleman is not only doing that, however; he is playing an active role. Last night, he boasted from the Dispatch Box about the role that we are playing in helping the Russians to diversify. When it comes to the British industry, however, that can diversify on its own. No wonder the British industrial leaders involved in defence have not received so much as a postcard until this week. We learnt from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement tonight that he has now sent them a letter, but until then they had been given no assistance whatever.
Diversification is important not merely to jobs. If we want to control the arms export trade from Britain, it is no good simply passing pious resolutions in Europe. We shall have to ensure that the arms production and export sales processes are also tackled by means of diversification.
The tragedy of this litany of lost opportunities is not just that they are bad for the morale of the Conservative party. I have done what I could—over the interruptions from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—to raise the Conservatives' morale, and to show them the lighter side of what their Ministers are doing. However, the position is also disastrous for the morale and future of the British armed forces and the British nation. The result of this ministerial incompetence is twofold: overstretch at home and lack of effectiveness abroad.
That overstretch has always been there. We know now that Operation Granby was mounted only through the superhuman effort of our service men and women, not only during but before the Gulf war. Every second tank in Germany was used to provide spares for the other tanks that went with the armoured division. Only under the present Government could our troops be asked to behave like demented Kwik-Fit fitters on the eve of a battle in the desert, running about shifting parts from one tank to another.
The Secretary of State's cuts will make the position even worse. As neither his Back Benchers nor I can convince him about the overstretch, let me recommend a book to him—not a library or a bibliography, but a single book. If he finds that too taxing, the Ministers can take a chapter each. The book, by Paul Kennedy, is called "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". It explains the terrible cost of retaining an imperial defence mentality when resources no longer merit it, and cannot be provided for it. Overstretch breaks the social contracts with our recruits.
As for arms control and nuclear de-escalation, while the Americans are dealing with the Russians to reduce the strategic deterrent, the British Government are increasing that deterrent. The Americans are cancelling SRAM-T, but, although NATO has put it on the back burner, the Secretary of State is convinced that we must go ahead with the tactical air-to-surface missile. The Secretary of State is doing nothing about substantial arms control and de-escalation. He is swimming against the tide of history.
Active, leading participation in all these areas has been abrogated by the Secretary of State for Defence. He lacks confidence. He is more at home with the comforting

certainties of the old cold war. The Secretary of State displayed his lack of confidence and understanding last night when he gave the reason for the failure of the Soviet coup as incompetence. Incompetent it was, but anyone who thinks that the Soviet coup failed just because of incompetence, or just because Boris Yeltsin got on to a tank, does not understand the strength of democracy. Six years of democratic change in the Soviet Union had given a precious gift to the Soviet people and even to sections of the Soviet military.
The Secretary of State is muttering away. Let me give him another example of why I believe he lacks confidence in democracy. He makes great attacks, as do his colleagues, on the position of the Labour party. I remember the Secretary of State's comments on the morning of the Soviet coup—not when it had failed. So surprised was the interviewer at his equivocation—let us remember that this was before the coup had failed, and I quote from the transcript, although the Secretary of State probably wants to forget this—that the interviewer said:
We weren't surely intending to do business with a hard-line, eight man emergency committee who are clamping down as they are today.
The Secretary of State replied—this is illuminating when one considers his resolution—
Well I've met Marshal Yazov. I think anybody who'd been to the Soviet Union realised people who were there had their concerns about the speed of the reforms and the tensions and difficulties that they were causing within the Soviet Union.
How understanding of the Secretary of State. How kind of him to see the other chap's point of view, even if the other chap was a dogmatic, reactionary Stalinist who had just engineered an unconstitutional coup d'etat. How resolute in his equivocation. How principled in his prevarication that morning before the coup failed. The Secretary of State should remember that interview before he criticises anyone on these Benches for lack of resolution.
The Secretary of State should also remember the legacy that he leaves the Ministry of Defence—a lack of vision in the absence of strategy, a complete mismatch between commitments and resources, a procurement regime that is marked by budget overruns and delays, a lowering of morale at home and an abrogation of responsibility abroad. Last night the Secretary of State took his first faltering steps to recoup his losses and to define a strategy. He started three years too late. He has only six months to go.
For years people have known that the health service of Britain is not safe in the Government's hands. It has taken the crass ingenuity of this Secretary of State and his Ministers to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the same is also true of the defence of this country. For that, if for nothing else, the Secretary of State will be remembered and for that he will be neither forgotten nor forgiven.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): What an incredible and brilliant speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Without any doubt he is the cleverest man on the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to speaking on defence, but whether that is very difficult I do not know. I have the gravest doubts about whether we heard anything about the Labour party's defence policy. We were promised a full review if Labour were to win the


election. That is all we have heard. We know that the Labour party will cut defence, but we do not know by how much. It is incredible to me that the Labour party is still so reluctant to spell out where its policy will lead and what it is going to do.

Mr. McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that this debate was about the motion before the House— a Government motion accepting the defence White Paper. This is not the opportunity to debate the Opposition's defence policy, which we should welcome.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Allow me to reply. We are debating the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Hamilton: Many points have been made during the debate and I shall have to write to most hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like to run through some remarks on resettlement, housing and the reorganisation of districts. I shall then move on to the rationale behind "Options for Change" and deal in particular with the Army and the infantry. I shall say something about Scots regiments. Therefore, I intend to address the main issues that have been raised during the debate.
It was good to hear again from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He is well informed on most issues involving foreign affairs and there was plenty of gravitas in his speech. I can hardly believe that it was the same right hon. Gentleman who, a few months ago, forecast that the Gulf war would end in a bloodbath, that the outcome was uncertain and that the war would go on indefinitely. It is interesting that the only thing that is going on indefinitely as a result of the Gulf war is the United Nations sanctions on which the Opposition were placing all their trust in terms of getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
I should like to deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and the measures that we are taking to ease the burden of change on individual service men.
We already provide resettlement services to around 14,000 service men and women each year. During the restructuring that will increase, but with careful planning the system will cope with it. Those made redundant will receive a special capital payment as well as the normal gratuity and pension. Thus a staff sergeant with 14 years' service would receive total payments of about £33,000 without commuting his pension. A major with 20 years' service would receive some £73,000. Those leaving the services will get briefings on careers, job search training and 28 days' pre-release resettlement training or attachment to a civilian firm to gain skills relevant in the civilian market.
The resettlement process aims to ensure that individuals are better placed to compete in the job market. They will, however, be able to have assistance from the tri-service resettlement organisation employment unit and also from the Regular Forces Employment Association or the Officers Association, as well as the Department of Employment.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the question of housing, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and

Waterside (Mr. Colvin). No discussion of the reductions in the armed forces would be complete without dealing with housing. Personnel leaving the services over the next few years, some under special arrangements for the redundancy programme, will include some who are not home-owners. Lump sum payments and terminal benefits should make it easier to enter the civilian housing market. However, we expect that most of those who opt to take redundancy terms will have already made their own provision for housing.
None the less, as the White Paper—"Britain's Army for the 90s"—said, the Ministry of Defence will be considerate in its treatment of those who will lose their entitlement to married quarters as a result of redundancy.
We have also said that, where possible, we will make available to housing associations some surplus service property to give temporary help, in the short term, to service personnel in severe housing need while they make more permanent arrangements. I hope that it will he possible to make substantive announcements on this item in the near future.
The proportion of home owners in the services is lower than the national average. My right hon. Friend said that he intended to make changes in the housing opportunities open to service personnel. He therefore set up a task force under my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces with representatives from the voluntary housing movement as well as from the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association—SSAFA—and the Federation of Army Wives. In addition to looking at the immediate problems faced by service personnel, the task force is also working on a new range of home ownership opportunities such as part ownership.
The intention behind that work is to enable service personnel, during their careers, to enter the housing market and get used to the costs and responsibilities that home ownership always carries with it.
I am particularly pleased to be able to announce that the Ministry of Defence has accepted an offer made by a leading financial institution whereby full-time members of the armed forces will be eligible to apply for mortgages at reduced rates. The preferential rate will apply for the full term of the mortgage whether or not the borrower remains in the armed forces. As part of the rationalisation of the Army's support area, we continue to study the reorganisation of the United Kingdom land forces district structure.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that a substantial number of the people who are leaving the forces are likely to want to obtain rented housing? Will he say anything about extra provision so that local authorities can met the need for additional rented housing?

Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech tomorrow, he will find that I have already referred to surplus married quarters being offered to housing trusts.
As part of the rationalisation of the Army's support area, we continue to study the reorganisation of the United Kingdom land forces district structure with a view to reducing from 10 the number of Army districts in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend announced the first stage of this reorganisation—the formation of the Wales and western district—on 23 July. The second stage


will be the formation of a new eastern district to replace the existing eastern and north-east districts. The new eastern district, to be formed in April 1992, will have its district headquarters at York. There will be no change to London district. Work on the final stage of the district structual reorganisation is continuing.
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who made enormous efforts to get the headquarters of the division located in Colchester. I am sorry that he will find this rather disappointing news.

Sir Antony Buck: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind comments. Is he aware that he has not answered any of the cogent points that I like to think I made in a letter to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a little while ago? The Secretary of State made encouraging noises and, for the reasons that I set out in the letter dated 16 July, it is a big mistake for Colchester to lose the area headquarters. Those reasons were then acknowledged as being cogent; why are they not now?

Mr. Hamilton: I fully acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern, but much serious thought was given to this and I know that the infrastructure provided at York was reckoned to be an overwhelming consideration.
I should like to deal with the specific concerns that are felt by several hon. Members about Britain's Army for the 1990s. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said much about this yesterday, but I hope that the House will bear with me if I cover some of the ground again. I know that it is a matter of widespread concern.
Perhaps I might first remind the House of the genesis of our plans. I do not need to set out again the detail of the extraordinary political and strategic changes, which were so graphically described by my right hon. Friend yesterday. There are already some 1 million fewer soldiers facing us from the one-time Warsaw pact countries in eastern Europe. Some 250,000 Soviet troops have also withdrawn from those countries and the total forces available to the Soviet Union are declining rapidly.
It was against the background of dramatic changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union that we first set out "Options for Change" last July. The changes were not expected to take place overnight. Rather, they were a programme of proposals phased over several years and able to respond to the developing changes in the international scene.
I should like to deal in particular with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Wiggin) that "Options for Change" was Treasury led and financially driven. That is not so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence decided that we needed to consider how our defences should be adapted to changing international circumstan-ces and, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, initiated the "Options for Change" exercise. The starting point was not a target for particular financial savings but an analysis of how the world, particularly Europe, had changed and was changing. This work was conducted under the direction of Defence Ministers and carried out by a team of their military and civilian advisers responsible for policy and programme issues. It was not externally imposed, driven or directed. The work had to take account

of resource questions. How could it not, given the other demands on our resources for priorities such as health care, education and social services?
In recognising alternatives, we had to address their cost or strike a balance between numbers of troops, equipment and support. Our aim as Defence Ministers has been to produce a structure that makes a reasonable demand on public expenditure, is affordable and is therefore sustainable. We have also been keen to ensure that our future manpower requirements make a reasonable claim on a falling number of young people in the population as a whole. That is how people expect a responsible Government to act.

Mr. Gary Waller: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I am afraid that I must continue, or I shall not be able to complete what I want to say.
The Government's approach to our forward defence budget in last year's public expenditure survey reflected the work on "Options for Change" and not the other way round. The reductions foreseen are modest both in themselves and in comparison with those envisaged by some of our allies. I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House sincerely take the view that the world remains so unstable that it is too early to reduce our forces. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained yesterday, the collapse of the Soviet Union has proceeded far more rapidly than we could have envisaged last year. There are still risks, as the bungled August coup illustrated, but the world has changed fundamentally and, with it, threats to our security. That is not just the view of the Government. Let us look briefly at the plans of our major allies.
President Bush has announced planned manpower cuts of half a million troops, or about 25 per cent., and United States ground and air forces in Europe are likely to halve by 1995. German forces are something of a special case, as they also have to absorb the one-time Warsaw pact troops of the NVA. As a result, their total strength will be reduced by more than 40 per cent. by the middle of the decade. The number of French forces will be reduced by about 17 per cent., Italian forces by about 27 per cent. and Spanish forces by about 37 per cent. Our plans envisage a cut of about 20 per cent.
I appreciate that there are particular concerns, as expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), who considered these cuts too deep. Yesterday, the House heard how the reduced number of battalions relates to our revised commitments, and perhaps I might repeat the figures tonight. The reduction in Germany will reduce demands on the infantry by 10 battalions—three in Berlin and seven elsewhere. Four battalions will go from Hong Kong and five regular battalions committed to home defence can be replaced by Territorials. That means that our regular infantry commitments come down by 19 battalions, against 17 which will be amalgamated or reduced.
In terms of manpower numbers, the figures are equally convincing. Our commitment in Europe will be reduced by about 35,000 troops. On top of that, we shall pull out of


Hong Kong about 6,000 men and there will be substantial savings in Army support activities in the United Kingdom. Against that background, the planned cuts amount to only 40,000—so surpluses will be created.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) that, for a mere £75 million a year, or the cost of three Tornados, we could put back six infantry battalions and get rid of all these ideas?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, but that may not he the priority that the services collectively decide that they want. We must bear in mind that the savings which we propose came from the executive committee of the Army Board. It suggested how this could he done—[Interruption.] I am not the executive committee of the Army Board. Ministers are not represented on that committee.
I should like to turn to Scotland. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are very worried. I accept that great strength of feeling in Scotland has been aroused by the proposed changes. No solution will please everyone, but it is plain wrong to suggest that Scotland is bearing a dispropor-tionate share of the reductions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]
The fact is that the proportion of Scottish units in the Army overall will increase rather than decrease. Looking at the infantry, four of the other five divisions will be reduced by a greater percentage than the Scottish Division, which will continue to provide almost the same proportion of the arm overall, which is about 16 per cent. However, looking at the Royal Armoured Corps, the 4th Royal Tank Regiment will amalgamate——

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose——

Mr. Hamilton: But the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards ——[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will give way in one minute. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards will remain unaffected, thus increasing Scottish representation overall. Similarly, none of the three Scottish artillery regiments will be affected, so their proportion rises. In short, although Scotland may provide a very slightly smaller proportion of the infantry, that is more than offset by a significantly bigger share of armour and artillery.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If my right hon. Friend wants fully maintained battalions—and all the Scottish ones that the Government propose to amalgamate are fully maintained—why does he want to get rid of the Scottish battalions as opposed to the battalions that are not fully maintained? Why does he consider that four Scottish infantry regiments, in a country that has always given a far greater proportion of the infantry to the defence of the realm, should be savaged again, including the Queen's Own Highlanders, who were amalgamated 30 years ago, whereas regiments that are under strength should be left alone, in the King's Division and in other places?

Mr. Hamilton: Many different considerations were given, some of which were geographical. I know that one consideration was the demographic change that will take

place in Scotland, which means that the numbers from whom we can recruit will be reduced more markedly in Scotland than in other parts of the country.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend. He is aware that I have sat here for two days and not been called in the debate. Is he aware that, in Scotland, we recognise that only under a Conservative Government is our future defence secure? However, can he tell us what the timing affecting the four Scottish regiments for amalgamation is likely to be? I assure him that the campaign that we are conducting to save our regiments will continue.

Mr. Hamilton: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We are trying to deal with the question of timing as sensibly as we can. All I would say is that none of the Scottish regiments is involved in phase one, which ends in March 1993.
This has been the most extraordinary debate. We have heard almost nothing about Labour policies.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose——

Mr. Hamilton: We have heard almost nothing about Labour policy. What we have had is countless Labour Members asking for certain units to be saved and for orders to be placed, although, at the same time, one has every reason to believe that they will vote for an amendment which says that defence expenditure should be cut more drastically than has been proposed by the Government.
The confusion does not end there. A number of Opposition Members are still sincere, paid-up members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) called yesterday for the Government to take the axe to our independent nuclear deterrent. Of course, he is not alone. The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are among members of CND on the Opposition Benches. They do not think that it is good enough to let their membership lapse.
How do such hon. Members react to the so-called "changed policy" on nuclear weapons in the Labour party? They arc remarkably calm about it. Perhaps it is because they know only too well that the only authentic Labour defence policy of any kind is that spelt out in the document "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change", which was passed by a two thirds majority at the 1989 Labour party conference. The document commits the future Labour Government to negotiate away Britain's deter-rents in exchange for a minute percentage of the enormous Soviet arsenals. The document has never been repudiated by the Labour leadership, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has it been allowed to lapse.
Many of us came here today to the last debate on a Defence White Paper before the election to hear more of the Government's plans for defence in the 1990s, so clearly set out in our document "Britain's Defence for the 90s". We were also interested to know what policy the Opposition put forward for the defence of our country into the next century.
I am afraid that we have been disappointed. Following this debate, our understanding of Labour's defence policy will be no clearer than it was at the beginning. We see a party infested with unilateral disarmers pretending that it will keep our nuclear deterrent. Labour Members who call for new orders and plead for the Government to save this


unit or that will shortly go through the Division Lobbies to vote for an amendment that calls for further cuts in defence expenditure. That is the official Labour party amendment, which you have selected, Mr. Speaker.
A quick glance at the Order Paper shows that 16 members of the Labour party want to get rid of Britain's deterrent, kick the Americans out of Europe and reduce our defence expenditure to a third. Behind those 16 names there are many more, and we cannot in any way entrust the country's defence to the Labour party.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 345.

Division No. 226]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dewar, Donald


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Alton, David
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Doran, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashley. Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alexander


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eastham, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Edwards, Huw


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle. John
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett. Margaret
Faulds. Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Fearn, Ronald


Bellotti, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joseph
Flannery, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blunkett, David
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes. George


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan. Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ron (Blylh Valley)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carr, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)


Cox, Tom
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Crowther, Stan
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell. Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cunningham, Dr John
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Darling, Alistair
Hoyle, Doug


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes. John (Coventry NE)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Illsley, Eric
Patchett. Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L.


Johnston, Sir Russell
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Primarolo. Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles
Radice, Giles


Kilfedder, James
Randall. Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Redmond. Martin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Dr John


Lambie, David
Richardson, Jo


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Geoffrey


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry
Rooker, Jeff


Litherland, Robert
Rooney, Terence


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands. Ted


Lofthouse. Geoffrey
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McCrea, Rev William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McFall, John
Short, Clare


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish. Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McNamara. Kevin
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley. Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Straw, Jack


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meacher. Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz. Keith


Michael. Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Warden. Gareth (Gower)


Michie. Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)
Wareing, Robert N.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morley, Elliot
Williams. Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris. Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mudd, David
Worthington, Tony


Mullin, Chris
Wray. Jimmy


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Nellist, Dave



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Frank Haynes and


O'Hara, Edward
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Allason, Rupert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall. Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkinson, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Body, Sir Richard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas






Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cartwright, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Christopher


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Chope, Christopher
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Churchill, Mr
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Irvine, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Robert


Dover, Den
Janman, Tim


Dunn, Bob
Jessel, Toby


Durant, Sir Anthony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Eggar, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Emery, Sir Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Fallon, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Farr, Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Favell, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knowles, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knox, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fookes, Dame Janet
Latham, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael





Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shelton, Sir William


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maginnis, Ken
Shersby, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Tony
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Speed, Keith


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speller, Tony


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mitchell, Sir David
Stokes, Sir John


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Summerson, Hugo


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thorne, Neil


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trimble, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trippier, David


Norris, Steve
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Pawsey, James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Ward, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wells, Bowen


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wheeler, Sir John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rossi, Sir Hugh



Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. David Lightbown and


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 66.

Division No. 227]
[10.18 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Allason, Rupert
Dover, Den


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amos, Alan
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkins, Robert
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, David
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Dame Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fry, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Michael


Butler, Chris
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Jatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cartwright, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, John


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hayward, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hind, Kenneth


Couchman, James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cran, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)





Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Page, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Paice, James


Hunter, Andrew
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Irvine, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Janman, Tim
Pawsey, James


Jessel, Toby
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Portillo, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Price, Sir David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Redwood, John


Knapman, Roger
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Riddick, Graham


Knowles, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knox, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Li I ley, Rt Hon Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Shelton, Sir William


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maclean, David
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Speed, Keith


Mans, Keith
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mitchell, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William






Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Warren, Kenneth
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. David Lightbown and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. John M. Taylor.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Carr, Michael


Alton, David
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cohen, Harry


Beggs, Roy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Bellotti, David
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fearn, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)





Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Howells, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sillars, Jim


Johnston, Sir Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lambie, David
Trimble, David


Lamond, James
Turner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McCrea, Rev William
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Maginnis, Ken
Wiggin, Jerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Meale, Alan
Winterton, Nicholas


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Monro, Sir Hector
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Eddie Loyden and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Bill Michie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 contained 1559

European Coal and Steel Community

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5577/91 relating to the future of the European Coal and Steel Community; supports the Government's view that early termination is to be preferred; but considers that, in the event that the Treaty is not terminated early, the flexibility contained within the Treaty should be used to bring about a less interventionist application of its provisions and to reduce burdens on business.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Leigh: The treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community expires in 2002. The European Commission has produced a document which identifies three principal options. The first is to extend the treaty beyond 2002, either as it stands or in an amended form. The second is early termination of the treaty, with the coal and steel industries then becoming subject, like other industries, to the provisions of the EEC treaty. The third option is to allow the treaty to expire in 2002. In that case, the interim period could be used to repeal or modify certain ECSC provisions and to incorporate others into the EEC treaty if that should prove to be necessary.
Early termination of the ECSC treaty is the Government's preferred option. But we recognise that such a solution may not be attainable. It would require unanimous acceptance by the Council and ratification by the national Parliaments of all member states; and that seems unlikely. We would, therefore, be prepared to allow the treaty to continue until it lapses in 2002, provided that the interim period is used to bring about a less interventionist approach and to reduce burdens on business.
I will explain why the Government have reached that conclusion. The ECSC treaty entered into force in 1952, five years before the treaty of Rome. At that time there was a world shortage of steel and a need to expand steel-making capacity to assist in the reconstruction of post-war Europe. There was a shortage of coal, and coal accounted for a dominant share of energy supplies. Against that background, it is not difficult to understand why the original six founder members of the Coal and Steel Community established a regime which provided for a high degree of intervention in the running of those industries.
In 1991, those conditions no longer apply. The plain fact is that the ECSC treaty is no longer in tune with the way in which modern market economies operate. The coal and steel industries are not special cases in the sense that they were when the Coal and Steel Community was established.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having said that the coal and steel industries are not special cases, does the Minister intend during his speech to explain the rights and wrongs of Commissioner Bruce Millan's charges on additionality? Commissioner Milian has outlined what seems to us to be a watertight case by the Commission which hits areas of the coal fields, particularly those well served by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, extremely hard.

Mr. Leigh: I had not intended to deal with that tonight, but I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question now. We regret that Commissioner Milian has not released those moneys. Our position is absolutely clear and there can be no doubt that the moneys are genuinely additional. They are taken into account in setting public expenditure totals and the British Government remain convinced that decisions of this type should be taken at a national, rather than at a Commission, level. I strongly suspect that any Government would take the same view.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is it not a fact that what Commissioner Milian is recommend-ing will not assist the British Treasury? In other words, he has available millions of pounds in funds for contingencies such as exist in my constituency, which had 30,000 miners 10 years ago and now has none, where bus deregulation has ruined the transport system and where cuts in local government spending are hitting local services. Millan is taking such issues on board, but the Government are stopping the process. It is additional money for areas such as that. It is money provided by someone else. Stepping in is not Milian or Europe but the British Government.

Mr. Leigh: It is not the Government who are stopping the release of the money; it is Commissioner Milian. This country pays considerably more in structural funds than it receives in return. We have made our position absolutely clear: the moneys that we receive from Europe for the RECHAR fund are genuinely additional—and it is, after all, our money. We give Europe the money in the first place; it does not come from Commissioner Milian. I am very sorry that the Commissioner seeks to spite the noses of his socialist friends, and I very much hope that he will release the money soon.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Is the Minister aware that all the other countries in the Community have satisfied the strictures laid down by the Commission, and that all the money has been allocated? Are all the other countries out of step with our Government? Does the Minister agree that it is wrong for the money to be buried in the Treasury after being allocated? The coal-mining areas need that money, and they should get it quickly. It is time for the Government to relent.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is right: the coal-mining areas do need the money. What a pity that Commissioner Milian has not released it. The Department of the Environment, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry have shown themselves to be very flexible in this regard. We had a very constructive meeting with Commissioner Millan in April and the Department of the Environment has introduced a new top-slicing arrangement that should have satisfied the Commissioner.
The fact is that Commissioner Milian cannot insist on the Government's being treated like a county council and county council's being treated like a Government. It is for this Government to decide the total of public expenditure, and as long as we remain in office that is exactly what we shall do.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that he holds the same view in relation to the RENAVAL programme funds? That programme is extremely important to my constituency and the constituency of Glasgow, Govan, both of which have


suffered from a terrible decline in their traditional industries. Does the Minister disagree with Commissioner Millan about that money?

Mr. Leigh: Exactly the same argument applies to RENAVAL as applies to RECHAR. Our position is absolutely clear: the moneys are genuinely additional. We take account of them in setting the totality of public expenditure. I very much hope, for the sake of Commissioner Millan's former friends, that he will release the money.
We are determined and consistent about this; we are not going to give way. We have already proved ourselves to be very willing to compromise. We have introduced top-slicing through the Department of the Environment. That is that. It is now up to Commissioner Milian to release the money. I hope that he reads Hansard. He will gain nothing by stalling. Let the whole House know that only one person is preventing the coal-mining and shipbuilding areas from receiving the money—Commissioner Milian.

Ms. Joyce Quin:: The Minister has said that the Government are absolutely clear about their position. In that case, will he comment on the widely reported differences of view between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury on the one hand, and the Department of the Environment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices on the other?

Mr. Leigh: The whole House knows that it is constitutionally impossible for Ministers to disagree, and that they therefore never do so.
Interesting though RECHAR and RENAVAL matters are, they are not strictly relevant to the debate, so I shall now proceed with my speech, although I have been happy to give way to hon. Members and to try to answer their questions.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Leigh: I shall be happy to give way later, but this is a short debate, and I have already given way four or five times.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothrovd): Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way for the moment.

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry that Opposition Members do not want to hear about our plans for the restructuring of the coal and steel communities.
The coal and steel industries are not special cases in the sense that they were in 1952 when the Coal and Steel Community was established. Industry itself recognises that and has argued for a smooth transition from the conditions of the ECSC treaty to a complete assimilation into the EEC treaty. We believe, as do the industries themselves, that the time has come when coal and steel should be treated like other industries.
Of course, there is a need for proper transitional arrangements, whether the treaty is terminated early or is allowed to run its course until 2002. We must make a start now to work out what these should be. This is not something that can be put on the back burner. The coal and steel regime must be brought up to date. The burdens that the present regime imposes on business must be

reduced. In order to do that, the provisions of the ECSC treaty need to be examined in detail so that we can see how the objective of orderly assimilation to the EEC regime can best be achieved.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister is right to say that the situation has changed dramatically since the initial agreement was drawn up. Nevertheless, we are on to an extremely important point in terms of European energy policy. Due to the decline of the coal industries in Europe, we look to the ECSC to provide us with an overall European framework for dealing with the problems of pollution, employment and the regeneration of the coalfields. Does the Minister agree that the ECSC provides us with a very good basis for doing just that?

Mr. Leigh: We are proposing an orderly rundown of the ECSC so that we can take up some of the hon. Gentleman's points and put the coal and steel industries into exactly the same position as our other industries.
There are schemes such as ISERBS—the Iron and Steel Employees Readaptation Benefits Scheme—that helps steel workers who are made redundant. British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has received £60 million from the Government. There are also the mechanisms of the European social fund, the European Investment Bank and the European regional development fund, all of which are available to take up the slack as the old treaty is run down. This treaty was created in 1952 when very different conditions appertained. It was probably necessary to adopt a much more interventionist approach. Those conditions have changed completely. We believe, as do the Commission and every other country in Europe, that the coal and steel industries can be treated in the same way as other industries. It is not right that they should be seen as special cases.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Minister has been attacked viciously by a lot of silly Members of Parliament in all parts of the House, would it not be appropriate at this stage to let him know that at least there will be delight in Southend-on-Sea and, I am sure, in many other Conservative constituencies that we have in him a Minister who is prepared to stand firm on a vital issue concerning democratic sovereignty? Does he appreciate that if he caved in to the outrageous proposals of the Labour party he would be falling for a straight trick, whereby the Commission is trying to seize a share of public expenditure so that the bureaucrats in Brussels can decide where cash is spent in Britain instead of our democratically elected Government? Is the Minister aware that the Department of Trade and Industry has done a fantastic job, that he has got to stand firm, and that if he caved in it would lead to a denial of democracy?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual robust fashion.
I welcome the Commission document, not because the Government agree with everything in it but because it is a useful starting point for discussion. It identifies the main issues and sets out the principal options.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister should explain the Government's attitude to the ECSC reserves. A substantial sum is held in reserve. The Commission appears to wish that sum in the reserve fund to be maintained, even after the expiration of the treaty. What is the Government's view? From a perusal of the


documents, I cannot tell whether the Government agree with the Commission, nor can I tell from the Minister's remarks whether he agrees with Lord Hesketh whose letter appears to show a great deal more enthusiasm for the continuation of sectoral aid than the hon. Gentleman's speech has done so far.

Mr. Leigh: I shall come to the issue of reserves and the levy. We believe that the reserves which have been built up as a result of the levy being imposed and which amount to about half a billion pounds should be used until the termination of the treaty to help the coal and steel communities. What happens after 2002 is for the then Government to decide. There are other European mechanisms, such as the European Investment Bank, that could be used to fill the gap left by the levy.
The levy is paid by all manufacturers of products covered by the treaty. The levies are assessed annually by the Commission based on the average value of the products concerned. Why, in 1991, should the coal and steel industries alone be obliged to make such payments? The levy is discriminatory. It applies to no other industries. It therefore puts coal and steel producers—and their customers—at a competitive disadvantage. It is no more and no less than a tax on production. It is the one and only current example of a Community tax. The Government believe that the time has come to abolish this tax. There are, anyway, sufficient reserves to meet all anticipated expenditure between now and the termination date.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency does not qualify for any of these moneys because South Derbyshire has successfully moved away from the old coal industry and replaced it with much more successful modern industries. However, I wish to press home the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister. The system of levying a tax on the producers of these products has helped to put the European coal and steel industry at a serious worldwide competitive disadvantage. The system has not helped the industry; it has helped to destroy it.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. In this day and age it is old fashioned to levy a tax on the production of industry. Why should we put our industry at a competitive disadvantage?
As the debate proceeds I should like to know whether the Labour party is still in favour of the levy. I do not know as it is not not entirely clear from its amendment. If the Labour party is in favour of a levy, it is in favour of discriminating against the coal and steel industries and of continuing a system that is out of date and a throwback to the Attlee Government. If that is the Labour party's policy, it puts in a different light the modern image that the party tried to convey at its conference.
Is the Labour party in favour of imposing a direct levy on the coal and steel industries? When the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) speaks for her party she must answer that question because it is of immense concern to the industry. The industry wants the levy abolished for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Almost everybody wants the levy to be abolished. The only people who want to retain the levy are in the Labour party. Why is that?

Dr. Kim Howells: Nonsense.

Mr. Leigh: It is the truth.
The treaty's consultative committee, which has representatives from trade unions, also wants to see the levy phased out. The industry, the Commission and the Government want the levy to be phased out. Only one party in Europe apparently wants to retain the old fashioned levy, a throwback to post-war years, and that is the new modern Labour party.
The reserve fund has been built up from the levies paid by coal and steel producers over the years. As I have said, it now amounts to some 750 million ecus—or over half a billion pounds. In the Government's view, these reserves should be run down during the remaining lifetime of the treaty. We recognise that, particularly in the coal sector, restructuring and readaptation support will continue to be needed. This would be an excellent use of the ECSC reserves. By using the reserves to meet current expenditure needs, we can reduce and then get rid of the levy.
The European Investment Bank is the Community's principal lending instrument, and could certainly undertake the kind of financing activities that have in the past been carried out by the ECSC. Consequently, there would be no need for a reserve fund as a guarantee for the Commission's lending activities.
The Commission paper recognises that ECSC provisions for the regulation of production and capacity, including interventionist measures to deal with a situation of "manifest crisis", have largely outlived their usefulness. The Government agree with and support the Commission's advocacy of a less interventionist approach. The existing requirement for pre-notification of investment plans is out of step with the current market. It is not clear from the amendment whether the Labour party supports pre-notification of investment plans. How extraordinary it is that, in theory, the industry is still required to give pre-notification of investment plans. If that is what the Labour party supports, it is totally out of tune with industrial best practice.
The requirement should be abolished, except where a company is applying for an ECSC loan. The Commission's studies and forecasts of the steel industry should be abolished or scaled down. We agree with the Commission that the rules governing the way in which prices are calculated and published are ineffective and should be abolished; they have no place in the marketplace of 1991.
There are significant differences between the ECSC and the EEC regimes on competition policy. Procedures for handling ECSC competition cases should be brought into line with those followed under the EEC treaty. National authorities should be consulted, as under EEC rules, and there should be greater transparency of Commission decisions.
We should like the tight control of state aid under the treaty to be maintained. Discussions are under way on a multilateral steel consensus and our aim is to achieve an agreement that imposes the greatest possible discipline.
The Commission's communication argues that the treaty has acquired invaluable experience in promoting social measures. We recognise the value that this aspect of ECSC activity has had in the past. However, not only have these measures been funded from the levy, but the vast readjustments during the 1980s have reduced their necessity.
Unlike the EEC regime, the ECSC makes no provision for a common commercial policy. The Commission's proposal to bring the ECSC regime in line with the EC regime seems entirely logical.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I should like to ask the Minister for advice. All members of the EC can borrow on the open market. Is it suggested that nationalised industries will be allowed to borrow on the open market?

Mr. Leigh: British Steel is no longer a nationalised industry, and nor will be British Coal after we have won the next election. That disposes of that point.
Finally, under the treaty of Rome, only the Council can enact specific rules——

Mr. Tony Favell: When my hon. Friend said "finally" I realised that this would be my last chance to intervene. Can he say how much the European Coal and Steel Community has cost British taxpayers since it was set up?

Mr. Leigh: I do not have a figure for that, but I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend. However, if he did not hear what I said earlier, I can tell him that enormous reserves of £500 million have been built up and that the levy is imposed directly on all producers. That is anachronistic and should be abolished as soon as possible.
Under the treaty of Rome, only the Council can enact specific rules, so there is negotiation and consultation with member states. That is not so under the ECSC treaty, which confers wide rule-making and executive powers on the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is an expert in these matters, will know that under the treaty the Commission is known as the high authority.
The Commission may seek to retain those powers. That would raise wider issues of competence that we and other member states would need to consider most carefully. Such issues will have to be addressed before the treaty is terminated in 2023 or earlier.
The treaty has served us well in the past, but in a number of important respects it has outlived its usefulness. The coal and steel industries can no longer lay claim to the special treatment that was appropriate in the 1950s, and they recognise that.

Mr. Frank Haynes: If the Government win the vote, that one is out of the way. What is the Minister prepared to do about the moneys that are available under RECHAR? Will he convince the Treasury that it should take its grubby hands off those moneys and let them serve their purpose?

Mr. Leigh: I think that I have answered five questions on that subject and have made our position clear. We give more money in structural funds than we receive in return. It is our money. The Government will decide how the money is spent, and that is that.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that one reason why we resist these proposals is that we do not want economic and monetary union? Implicit in these proposals and in the papers which were presented to the Select Committee on European Legislation and which are before the House is the suggestion that, to facilitate economic and monetary union, we should go down the route proposed by the

Commission. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we will not go down the route of economic and monetary union in the terms currently proposed?

Mr. Leigh: I leave those weighty matters to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I might want to pontificate on such points, perhaps I had better leave them to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that Conservative Members bitterly resent the activities of Commissioner Milian in preventing the release of moneys to our constituencies under the RECHAR programme because of the bogus accusation that the Government are not already assisting the coal communities with specific funds.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. During the past 12 years, the Government have invested more in the coal industry than all other Governments put together since 1945. The Government have invested £100,000 every hour of every working day in the modernisation of the British coal industry. Since the end of the miners' strike, the productivity of the industry has soared by more than 100 per cent. British Coal recently achieved an impressive weekly output of well over 5 tonnes per man shift.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) talks about closing pits. The Labour Government closed more pits than we have closed, and the Labour party should respond to the point. British Coal has a bright and successful future under a Conservative Government. It will provide the coal that the market needs.

Mr. Alan Meale: The Minister is talking about a great revival. Would he like to comment on the Rothschild report which his Government funded and which talks about 47 pit closure problems for British Coal and coal-mining communities in the United Kingdom?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be an interesting question, but it is irrelevant to the treaty.

Mr. Leigh: Our aim is to have an orderly and smooth transition to the EEC regime. Industry's interests can best be met by early termination of the treaty or by a less interventionist application of its provisions and a reduction in the burdens that it imposes on business. That is always our aim in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I beg to move, to leave out from second "Community" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
believes that the European Coal and Steel Community should be allowed to run its course and that between now and the expiry date of 2002 ways of incorporating industrial, social and regional elements of the ECSC treaty into the EC treaties should be fully examined.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the ECSC treaty. It is good that, for once, the House is able to debate a European matter at an early stage, offering—we hope—a chance for hon. Members to have their voices heard in the decision-making process. None the less, I believe that the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry has brought forward this subject for debate is far from satisfactory. We have a take note motion in front of


us. Usually, such motions are fairly neutral and pass without a vote. We expected that to happen tonight, but the motion is far from neutral. It is expressed in the language of Tory party dogma, and right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment so that our views are clearly spelt out.
We believe that, once again, the Government are isolated in the European Community on this issue, because no other country favours an early winding up of the ECSC treaty in the way that the British Government do. Indeed, the only Government ally I could find was, not surprisingly, their spokesperson in the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, who tried to persuade his Commission colleagues to back him but singularly failed to do so.
The Government's position is as outlined by the Minister: they do not like the ECSC treaty because it is interventionist and includes elements of industrial policy as well as social and regional measures which, as we know, are financed by the ECSC levy. We like the idea of the treaty because of the way in which it favours the promotion, the modernisation and even the expansion of the coal and steel sectors and the way in which it provides help with, for example, research.
I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) did not mention the fact that ECSC financial support can be given for research and for industrial modernisation, and therefore that the levy is not simply a tax that provides no benefit to the industry; it can be used by the industry for very valuable projects.

Mrs. Currie: May I put to the hon. Lady the fact that if the industry, much of which, of course, is privately owned—many of the companies involved are private companies and always have been—did not have to pay the levy, it could finance its own research and might pick rather better winners than any Government might.

Ms. Quin: If the hon. Lady looks at the record, she will see that many worthwhile projects, as well as collaborative work done across Europe, have been supported by the levy. She should recognise the role that a public and private partnership can play in the operation of the ECSC treaty. In the future, between now and the expiry of the treaty, the money can continue to be used wisely for the future of the industry.
It is possible, of course, under article 58 of the ECSC treaty, to produce measures to manage the industry during the period of so-called manifest crisis. Many of us here tonight will remember that article 58 was used in the early 1980s during the prolonged steel crisis. Those measures resulted in a system of quotas under which production was shared out among EC member countries. It was a very painful period, especially in the United Kingdom where the Government seemed hell bent on seeing the industry contract to a dramatic extent. If the Government had been left to their own devices, the situation would have been even worse in Britain, and the social and regional consequences would have been even more severe, if that can be imagined, without the redundancy payments, the financial assistance for retraining and the finance for new industry starting up in regions that were affected by the crisis.
It is true that in the ECSC treaty coal and steel are treated as a special case. We all understand the historical reasons why that is so. However, I wish that it had been possible for other industrial sectors to receive some similar treatment. The shipbuilding sector, for example, had a painful contraction and run-down. Merchant shipbuilding in this country has practically disappeared. EC money was not available there for new investment, for modernisation or for research, which have been possible in the case of coal and steel.
I understand that the Government take the view that the manifest crisis measures are no longer necessary and will never be applied in the future. However, I believe that if the Government agree with the report by their consultants, to which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have referred, there will be a severe manifest crisis in the coal industry. I hope that that does not come about, but it may be unwise to remove those parts of the ECSC treaty which provide for co-operation in a period of manifest crisis.
Cases such as shipbuilding and other sectors, which were not able to be approached in that manner, show that there may be a good reason why some of the ECSC provisions should be examined closely in the period between now and the expiry of the treaty in 2002 to see whether they can be extended to other sectors and what elements of the treaty could be incorporated into the EC treaty, and to see what could be done to help certain industrial sectors in the future.
The ECSC also contains important social measures. Some of the ideas in the ECSC treaty foreshadow later developments in the European Community such as the European social charter. When I listen to Ministers, I sometimes get the impression that they feel that the European social charter is simply an unwelcome addition to the European Community's main activity, which should be simply to create a large common market. However, the ECSC treaty shows us clearly that those social and regional concerns were part of the European process from the beginning.
Although the Government may find it unfashionable or unpleasant to swallow those ideas, many of us think that those ideas are sensible. There is, for example, the fact that Government and industry should work together to create the conditions for long-term industrial prosperity, and that they should work together to resolve social and regional problems created by economic and industrial change, and by the need for modernisation.
We should look beyond the United Kingdom to the former East Germany and the countries of eastern Europe, all of which are hoping for a closer association with the European Community in future. Has the Minister considered that it might be possible to use ECSC provisions as a way of helping the painful economic transition in eastern Europe? We know that eastern Europe has an old coal and steel sector, and we know also that great environmental problems have been created in the area. The former communist regimes of eastern Europe were probably the least environmentally friendly that the world has ever known. It is unfortunate that until now the British Government have been one of the least generous Administrations in their attitude towards change in eastern Europe. Surely we should examine the treaty to ascertain how eastern European countries can be helped between now and its expiry, and in what way some of its provisions can be continued thereafter.
Measures to help regions are an important aspect of the treaty. The low-interest soft loans that have been available from the ECSC to coal and steel areas have been extremely useful, and could provide a good precedent for other sectors of industry. I am not surprised, however, that the Minister said little in support of EC regional measures. As a member of the No Turning Back group, I presume that he supported its pamphlet that poured scorn on European regional policy and declared that it served no useful purpose. It seems to me that without the stimulus of the ECSC or the work of European regional Commissioners such as Commissioner Milian, regional policy would have disappeared entirely from the Government's agenda. It has almost disappeared, and perhaps it was the existence of regional commitments at European level that forced the Government to respond to some of the issues that otherwise they would have ignored.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I think that we are all concerned to ensure that within the United Kingdom there Is fair distribution and help to the regions that are less advantaged than others. The point that underlies this EEC nonsense is that we contribute £2,000 million and gel. back £440 million, or thereabouts. It is the British taxpayers' money, not EEC money, that is being recycled by the EEC. Many of us find that offensive.

Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The EC regional funds are governed by an agreement that the moneys should be used in the designated regions. It is our contention that the moneys are not being used in those regions because they are not providing additional benefit. The Treasury is regarding the funds as a convenient source of national money and is not allowing the funding of the extra economic activity that was the purpose of the regional funds.

Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Lady aware that in Germany massive funds are being made available to the coal and steel industries, in addition to the moneys that are available under the ECSC? These funds are blatantly contradictory to the competition rules that apply within the Community as a whole and they should be discontinued. With these arrangements in place, British coal and steel workers are placed at a considerable disadvantage. I understancl that the hon. Lady wants to help those workers rather than to do them the disservice that she does with the arguments that she advances.

Ms. Quin: Differing levels of state aids within the Community concern me greatly. I am even more concerned that the British Government have unilaterally cut support in the hope that other countries will follow them. That was an unrealistic approach and it would have been far better to argue for the harmonisation of state aids and more even treatment.
In considering regional help from Brussels to coal and steel areas we should draw attention to the Government's appalling record, especially in regard to the RECHAR scheme. I am riot surprised that money is in jeopardy, given the Government's failure to give assurances that it will be used to provide benefit to the designated regions. I am disappointed that, despite the disagreements in Government circles, the Minister could not give us any assurances on that point tonight. I am also worried that RECHAR could be the tip of the iceberg. The Government are not applying European rules properly

through their misuse of European money. How long will it be before the Commission decides to widen the argument to the rest of the European structural funds? If that happened, it would be dangerous for this country.
The Minister said that the money was additional, but that does not make sense when we consider that during the period when European regional funds almost doubled, regional preferential assistance to British regions was cut by more than 60 per cent. Despite the existence of those extra funds, the amount of money entering the United Kingdom regions has declined dramatically during this Government's period of office.
With regard to RECHAR and the other EC regional funds, we will continue to highlight how the Government have denied to some of our most hard-pressed areas the assistance that they could have used to promote their long-term economic and industrial well-being.
Our position in respect of the ECSC is close to the majority of European countries and to the Commission —the treaty should be allowed to run its course and we should use the intervening period thoroughly to examine what aspects of the ECSC treaty can be incorporated into the EC treaty itself.

Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's apparent objective of early termination of the treaty is extremely provocative? The Minister does not have a cat in hell's chance of achieving that so-called objective in the Council meeting.

Ms. Quin: I do not agree with the Government's view, but it seems to be tactically very unwise to use an issue like this, where there is absolutely no chance of success, simply to create antagonism among other EC member countries for no useful purpose.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Lady accept the simple statement that it is not the Government who are denying funds to necessary industries, rather Commissioner Millan is responsible? [Interruption.] That is true. He is using blackmail by saying, "Give up the right to decide how our money is spent or else you won't get it." In the interests of democracy, will the hon. Lady accept that it is Brussels that is saying no, not the Government?

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is "blackmail" a parliamentary word?

Madam Deputy Speaker: In the context that it was used, it is perfectly acceptable to me.

Ms. Quin: The point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is not justifiable and it is not true. Commissioner Milian is trying only to get the British Government to respect the agreement into which they have already entered—that the money would be additional. The Government agreed to that and signed the agreement, but they are not respecting it. That is what the argument is all about. If the hon. Member for Southend, East is right, it is inexplicable that virtually all the coalfield areas support Commissioner Milian. If the hon. Gentleman is right, they would be supporting him. The fact that they are not doing so is very significant.

Mr. Cash: Does not the hon. Lady believe that she should be putting pressure on Commissioner Milian—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one debate at a time, please.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Lady believe that, in line with my earlier point, she should be putting pressure on our friend, Commissioner Milian, to make sure that there is a level playing field as respect state aids provided by other countries in the coal-steel regime? It is precisely because that is not being done that makes our position that much worse, and that of the workers whom she is supposed to represent, as I do.

Ms. Quin: The matter of state aids goes far wider, as the hon. Gentleman knows, than the ECSC treaty. The matter comes within the remit of Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, not Commissioner Milian. I have referred many times to the discrepancies in levels of state aid within the European Community and used them as a reason for a far more supportive approach for industry by the Conservative Government. I recently wrote an article about that, and I should be delighted to show it to the hon. Gentleman if he is at all interested.

Mr. Favell: Is the hon. Lady able to say what the administrative cost is of the Europeans churning the money in that way? Conservative Members believe it to be the most enormous white elephant, and it has been for years and years. Did the Labour party do its arithmetic before it opposed the motion?

Ms. Quin: We know that one way of simplifying the system and making it cost less money is to allow the regions to have much more direct links with Brussels over the allocation of the money. Because of the Government's insistence on everything having to go through the Treasury, even when they act contrary to the rules in Brussels which they originally accepted, the present situation is very unsatisfactory. The Government are helping to waste some of the money on unnecessary administrative burdens.
The Government's attitude to the ECSC treaty is a clear example of the way in which they have failed not only the regions but the United Kingdom as a whole. It will be left to an incoming Labour Government to repair the damage and put us on the road to regional and industrial recovery.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to say a few brief words on which I hope hon. Members will reflect.
I am sure that, if I represented a steel or coal area and if there were the slightest chance of getting more money under any guise, I would support it. Opposition Members have fought bravely and sincerely in the interests of their constituents. They are quite right, and I am sure that their constituents would be glad to do it also. However, they must realise that we are not talking just about cash for industry and commerce. We are talking about a fundamental right of the United Kingdom Government. If people do not like what the Government are doing, they can chuck them out at the election. They can elect the Labour party and they can change things. At least we have the power to decide.
The Department of Trade and Industry has achieved a victory on a fundamental point, and we are proud of it. It has said that the Government will stand firm on the basic principle that cash coming from Europe is indeed additional cash and that we, as a democratic Government,

decide how it is then parcelled out. If we say that Commissioners will decide how the cash is to be spent in Britain, what the blazes is the point of Opposition Members trying to be elected to Government? If we say that the Brussels machine will decide how the cash is allocated and how it is spent on top of Government money, we will throw away a huge section of decision making.
Opposition Members fight sincerely and valiantly for their constituents. What do they do if they do not like what the Euros are doing? What do they do if they think that they are wasting money—throwing good money after bad? They can do nothing whatsoever about it. It is an essential issue of democracy.
For the first time in a long time I am delighted to support a Government motion on a Euro issue. There is no doubt that there has been a change. If Opposition Members had come to the Conservative party conference they would have seen a significant change of opinion, just as if I had gone to the Labour party conference I would have been aware of a change. After some of the crazy undemocratic actions of the EEC, there is now a desire on the part of the Government to try to fight some battles. At least we are fighting one here.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said that we are out of step—the other countries do not bother about it. If they are offered money by Commissioner Millan, the other countries say, "All right, we will take it, and shove it on top of our policies." Of course, the other countries are doing that. We must remember that most of those countries are net recipients of EEC funds. The difference is that Britain and one other are massive contributors. Last year, despite all the glories of the changes made by the former Prime Minister, who got refunds and rebates, the net contribution by the United Kingdom was £2.3 billion. That is an underestimate, because, on top of that, much of the money was given to traders to dump food, and that was expected to be receipts.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman has always been consistent and tonight he has let the cat out of the bag in giving us his assessment of the Government's approach. As he has long been critical of the EC, will he not at least be sufficiently generous to congratulate Commissioner Milian on seeking to ensure that the rules that he has to apply are applied fairly and properly to Britain and to everywhere else? In making sure that the funding is being properly applied, he has discovered that it is not being properly applied here because the Government have agreed with the hon. Gentleman and are in breach of their own commitments as well as the rules of the Community.

Sir Teddy Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman looks back into history, he will find that that is the consistent view of United Kingdom Governments—that cash given from Brussels under these aids is added to the investment total. It is, of course, additional and the Government then determine its distribution. If we did not do that, we would be throwing away a huge section of the decision-making powers of any democratic Government.
Despite what Ministers say—we know that they have denied this—we are aware that there has been a battle over this. The easy way would be to say, "Okay, we'll take Mr. Millan's cash and quietly hand over this power." It would be easy to do that because every other member state does


it—except the United Kingdom. It is not true that the law or the obligations are clear and precise. There are different interpretations, but this is a battle worth fighting.

Mr. Cash: I agree with 90 per cent. of what my hon. Friend is saying, but will he make it absolutely clear that he would not in any way want to see the wrapping up of the ECSC treaty in favour of an EEC treaty combined with economic and monetary union, which is implicit in the proposals? In other words, does he agree that he would reject that aspect also?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I should, if I were——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is rather wide of the mark. Perhaps the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will come back to the treaty under discussion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It would be an insult to you and to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to be drawn into all the business about EMU. The ECSC is complicated enough without straying into other areas.
My second point to hon. Members is, "Please, please don't think that there are no conditions attached to taking easy cash." We should think about the problems facing many of our constituents. I am sure that many people in the constituencies of Opposition Members will have got into trouble by taking easy cash. Well, this would be easy cash. We could simply knock on Mr. Millan's door and say, "Right, we'll take it," and then piles of money would flow into the United Kingdom as a result of the administrative hold-up. But what would we be giving up in exchange? We are giving up the democratic rights of the Government. If the Government make a mess of things, they can be thrown out. If there is a by-election, people will give the Government a warning. I advise Opposition Members who have fought hard for their constituents— and some of them fought in the war for democracy—not to throw away this additional freedom of action of Governments. Opposition Members should remember that if the Government are doing something that they do not like, they can fight to chuck them out.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Bruce Milian had £300 million to give away to farmers Conservative Members would be turning somersaults to get hold of that money? Are we not seeing another example of an attack on the mining communities and are not these objections simply because the money is for those mining communities?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will realise that I accept—most Conservatives think this privately although we cannot talk about it—that the common agricultural policy is a load of rubbish, a waste of money and that it damages the third world. If we look at the figures, we find that for the money that we give there, we could give every farmer a cheque for £127,000 and say, "Good luck. Do as you like. Go on your way." But because the system is wasteful and bureaucratic, they do not get it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not talking about farmers or miners because both farmers and miners are decent people, whom we must protect. That is why we should talk not about them and their respective merits, but about democracy.
My second and final point which I hope that hon. Members will think about is, "Please, please don't think

that everything spent by the EEC is good and that everything spent on research is good and is not wasteful." Let us think for a moment about the recent decision.
Way back in 1975 I recall listening to hon. Members such as the Minister for Transport when it was made abundantly clear that, come what may, there would be no question of any EEC or Government funding for anything that was then called the channel tunnel. We had advertisements all over the newspapers saying——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a good run, but he is now widening the debate considerably.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am coming right back to the ECSC. I do not think that you will have heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that hon. Members will be shocked to hear that, believe it or not, the ECSC, which was set up to defend coal and steel, has given a £300 million cheap loan to the channel tunnel in addition to the £1.3 billion given by the European investment bank. Now the Government's latest plans are to pretend that the line is partly a commuter line and put piles of money into it.
The funds are being used in a bogus way to give backstairs Government money to promote and keep going white elephants such as the channel tunnel and others. I ask hon. Members please to remember that this is not an issue of giving or not giving cash to miners. The fact is that if Bruce Milian had kept to the rule that the Commission has abided by until now—it had never broken it until recently—the money would be coming from Brussels. It is not coming because there has been a change of policy in the EEC, not on the part of the Government. The Government have not changed the rules or their policies. We have always proposed the idea of additionality.
The Commission has changed its mind. It is saying, "We are not sending the cash because you will not agree to our decision making." It is a huge democratic issue. Therefore, I hope that Opposition Members will not go through all the nonsense of saying that the Government are denying the cash. Opposition Members know what the facts are. They know that Mr. Milian has changed the rules and is now saying, "You agree to my rules, the rules which other members accept, or you will not get the cash." It is absolutely disgraceful——

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He has always supported the right things. But he knows what the facts are. The rules have been changed.

Mr. Dalyell: In what way has Commissioner Milian changed the rules?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Previously the Commission accepted the policy of the United Kingdom that the funds would come to us, that we would add them to the total and that we would make our decision about distribution. That is a fact. The Minister may be able to clarify the issue further, but the facts are clear and precise. Opposition Members know what the issues are. Therefore, I hope that while they fight valiantly for their constituencies, their coal miners and the steel industry, they remember the democratic issue and the rights of a democratic Parliament.
If the Government do things that people do not like, we can get rid of them. If the people do not like what Mr. Milian and the Commission do, they are utterly powerless.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: As the debate progresses we can probably conclude that the No Turning Back group is very much alive in the Department of Trade and Industry. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) had better realise that this is not a question of democracy. It is not even a question of decision-making. It is a question of the money that we will throw away if we subscribe to the bogus democratic arguments that the hon. Gentleman sought to advance.
I found it a bit rich when the Minister talked about non-intervention and taxes. In Britain an energy tax is being applied. There is an energy tax on the coal industry to subsidise the nuclear power industry. That is the policy of the Government. So it is clear that the Government pursue interventionist policies. The Minister talked about a less interventionist approach. We listened yesterday to an interventionist approach when the Secretary of State for Transport talked about subsidising the Huntingdon line. There may be a good argument for it but I simply suggest that it is bogus for the Minister to talk at the Dispatch Box about non-intervention, taxes and subsidies when his Government pursue such policies.
Commissioner Bruce Milian has been attacked in the debate tonight for holding back the money. The argument of the hon. Member for Southend, East is not so much that the miners should get the money. He wants to get his hands on the money too. He uses the bogus argument that the Treasury has the right to decide even though the Government came to an agreement about how the money should be allocated. It is no use trying to say that the rules were changed; they were not. Her Majesty's Government entered into a binding agreement on how the funds should be allocated. Money was earmarked for mining areas, such as mine which is job hungry, and such deprived areas are waiting for it now. Yet the Government argue that it is Mr. Milian who is holding them back.
We in the House are always arguing about additionality. Mr. Milian has made it perfectly clear that every other country in the EEC has carried out the decisions. This Government entered into a binding agreement and all the other countries have agreed, but this Government want to go back on their word. They want the money that is earmarked for mining areas to be buried in the Treasury, which would then decide on its allocation. The House must decide whether the mining areas are to be deprived of the money that was specifically earmarked to deal with the contraction of the mining industry.
This is not a question of sovereignty. Tory Members have advanced a bogus argument. It is a question whether the Government are still so prejudiced against miners that they want to deprive mining areas of the money allocated to them. We deprecate that.
The Minister spoke of the Government's record on assistance for mining areas. All I say to him is give them time. If the Rothschild report is implemented, there will be no mining industry left. As a supporter of the No Turning Back group and as part author of a pamphlet of it, the hon. Gentleman will be happy about that.
Having listened to the debate, I can understand why the Government are facing defeat at the general election. I understand from the attitude of hon. Gentlemen. They want to hold on to money that is earmarked for areas that have suffered from the contraction of the mining industry. It is a disgrace that a Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and make such a case when he knows that his Government entered into a binding agreement, yet will betray it.

Mr. William Cash: I shall speak briefly in support of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He is right about sovereignty for the very reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who touched on the question of taxation in relation to these proposals.
The documents make it clear that one of the main ingredients of the proposals in the treaty is the provision of a genuine and direct tax. As the explanatory memorandum states:
the Commission points out that the levy on the ECSC industries … used to fund redeployment aid, is the sole example of a genuine Community tax.
Now we have the proposal for an energy tax which will compound the problem, but I shall not stray into that this evening. The memorandum continues by saying that the Commission advocates the retention of these proposals precisely because this is a genuine Community tax. That is at the heart of the sovereignty question and why I agree 100 per cent. with the Government and my hon. Friend. The reality is that we are dealing with a matter that goes to the heart of the functions of this House.
I mentioned the control of state aids when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). The Commissions's document states:
Control of State aids is more restrictive in the ECSC Treaty than in the EEC Treaty.
It is precisely because of the misuse of state aids to France and Germany, through the derogations that have been conceded, that our coal and steel workers are put at such a disadvantage. They should be supporting us, not vice versa.

Mr. Hood: The hon. Gentleman appears to be against regional aid and he seems to have the support of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who has a mining community in his constituency. The hon. Members seem to be against regional aid, in particular aid to mining communities. However, the Government have already agreed to that policy, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said, they are now welching on that agreement. As a result, the millions of pounds that could be spent in deprived areas will no longer be available. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) supports that policy.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have comprehended the point about regional aid. The problem with regional aid is that it distorts economies in a way that ensures that the money goes on resources that are not properly used. It would be far better to have effective economies through competition that would be able to compete with one another. That is what the European Community is supposed to be all about. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will not, of course, agree with me because he is a socialist, if not a marxist.

Mr. Hood: Thank you.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may thank me because that is what he is.
The whole problem about state aid is that it distorts the market and militates against the interests of the very people who Opposition Members are supposed to represent. That is the problem and one of the reasons why the Government are completely right in their policy.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) giving way or has he finished his speech?

Mr. Cash: I gave way because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is so persuasive.

Madam Deputy Speaker,: It would be nice if that were indicated to me.

Mr. Salmond: Since the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is against all forms of state aid, is the logic of his argument that he is against the billions of pounds spent in London docklands in the past three years?

Mr. Cash: Where state aids are used in a manner that is contrary to the provisions of the EEC treaty—that is where the problem arises—they are unlawful and they should be dispensed with. There are occasions when within the context of treaties they are allowable and that would be acceptable in the docklands case. When dealing with state aids which are unlawful and which should not be used, they should be dispensed with. That is what Commissioner Brittan is trying to do, and he is running into a lot of difficulty with the French and the Germans for precisely that reason.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The ECSC treaty played a considerable part in the rebuilding of the manufacturing industry in Europe. One should not look upon it as though it were a dreadful error, as seems the implication from some Conservative Members' speeches. However, it must be accepted that today the ECSC treaty looks outdated. and out of context in modern Europe. Change is overdue. An obvious example is that the levy that cannot logically be regarded as appropriate in today's liberal economic democracies of Europe and in their common market.
The long-term question is whether, and if so how, the two important industries of steel and coal should still be supported by special financial provisions and to what extent they should be integrated into the post-1992 market. With the sole exception of agriculture—I make that exception because of its universal distribution across the Community countries—it seems sensible and logical that all the industries of Europe, including steel and coal, properly be regarded by the same standard within the Community.
Another important issue that arises was not considered in the 1950 treaty because it was not a subject for debate at that time—the environment. The ECSC treaty fails to take into account any of the urgent environmental imperatives which we understand today, but did not understand 40 years ago. It fails to mirror the commitment that the European Commission has made in the past two

years in favour of tough carbon and desulphurisation ceilings to be imposed on heavy manufacturing industry and the energy industry.
Modern European economics mean that we must end local protectionism of industries, including coal and steel, in terms of direct state aid and subsidies. Primarily, that too means that the EC must create an equal standard for the treatment of industries in all member states.
In some member states—I cite Italy as an example because the evidence is clear—the Government have enabled the steel industry to be underpinned by large subsidies, despite obvious inefficiencies. I hope that we all agree that any new legislation to emanate from the EC must ensure that no member state permanently subsidises inefficient producers elsewhere in the Community, particularly when the British steel industry has made significant productivity gains during the last 10 years. Whether it was right to achieve those gains in the way it occurred is open to debate. Nevertheless, we in the United Kingdom have taken the medicine prescribed by world markets. Others have still to face up to it, and it is not right that we should pay for their recalcitrance.
While we appreciate that many provisions in the ECSC treaty are anachronistic in many respects, there is still an overwhelming need for policies that address the industrial development and future of the industries themselves and, perhaps more particularly, of the geographical areas in which they are set.
The areas where coal and steel were predominant in employment terms are now in transition from dependence on those industries. Nowhere in the United Kingdom is that more obvious than in north Wales, where a successful transition has been made from almost total dependence on coal and steel to coal and steel being part of a much wider range of productive industry.
The circumstances of coal and steel decline, especially as, hopefully, we see the countries of east and central Europe joining the EC, either with associate or full member status, mean that we must concentrate policy on regenerating the regions where the industries are dying or have died. Funding must be made available in future, though probably not through ECSC machinery, to enable stronger regional governments to facilitate measures such as retraining for laid-off workers and seed-corn capital initiatives.
The Government's determination to terminate the ECSC treaty at an early stage and to regulate the two industries through the broader provisions of the treaty of Rome risks sacrificing the urgency of the transitional regional development that needs to be achieved.
If the commitment by the EC on environmental regulations is to mean anything, any new treaty or amendment to the treaty of Rome must entrench the targets for carbon emissions and desulphurisation. My party believes that such commitments should have constitutional force. There should be the certainty of enforcement and the Government should say that, whatever happens to the ECSC treaty, a high priority will be given not only to regional regeneration but, with that constitutional force, to protecting the environment. There must be devised and agreed a new EC energy strategy with much stronger commitments to the environment than the British Government have ever been prepared to make.
While these EC documents are silent on those environmental issues, their balanced conclusions on other matters are sensibly cautious and a practical and correct


part of what we can properly regard as the evolution of the economic and monetary union to which I aspire. My party regrets that the Government do not show the same level of commitment. That is why, I believe, Commissioner Milian looks with a suspicion shared by many on the Government's attitude to additionality. The Government know, I am sure, that their reputation on the additionality question is worse than that of any other Government in the Community—although that may be something on which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) would congratulate them.
It is a matter of regret to my party that the Government are not prepared to recognise that the gradual approach represented by the European Community documents is a reasonable and proper one; and that they adopt such a grudging approach to change in the Community.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The attitude taken by the Opposition tonight suggests that they have lost none of their enthusiasm for levies and taxes. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) showed that at least there is a constructive view in his party, and that the Commission's proposal was out of date. It is unfortunate, however, that the Labour party should choose to side with the institutions of the EEC against our own domestic interests.
There is no doubt that all hon. Members who represent coalfield areas have a common interest in ensuring that the £100 million of RECHAR money wends its way to our constituencies as quickly as possible. I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) can so breathtakingly dismiss the massive amounts of public funding that have been given to our industry by the Government. According to my hon. Friend the Minister, the industry has received some £14,000 million of taxpayers' money. No one in his right mind could accuse the Government of having done anything other than support the industry most generously. My own constituency has seen the effects of derelict land grant. In the past eight years or so, it has received some £6 million and areas that were formerly derelict have been transformed.
I believe that Commissioner Millan is the man who is being thoroughly bloody-minded. It is most unfortunate that the Opposition have chosen to support him, and the institutions of the EEC, against domestic and constituency interests. As a former Minister, Commissioner Milian knows as well as anyone the way in which the United Kingdom organises its public finances. He knows that the Treasury maintains control over all aspects of public expenditure and that it must so do.
We must bear in mind the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the question of additionality exists. That is why, in the attempt to reach an accommodation with Commissioner Milian. nearly £100 million has already been committed to ensure that the RECHAR money can be released. Some £45 million of top-slicing has been agreed, along with £22 million of derelict land grant, £25 million for British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and £6 million in rural coalfield grant. That shows

that the British Government have sought to do a deal with Mr. Millan—but he is not interested; he is only prepared to be bloody-minded.

Mr. Andy Stewart: May I reinforce what my hon. Friend has just said? Before doing so, however, may I nail the lie attributed by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that any hon. Members have been exchanging lies here this evening.

Mr. Stewart: The view attributed to me is not my view. I have always supported the additional money coming to the areas that I represent. This year, under the stage 2 funding from the EEC, Newark and Sherwood district council is having three projects funded to the tune of £500,000 each. We are disgusted that the further help through RECHAR that is earmarked for my constituency, and for part of Ashfield district council, is being blocked by Mr. Milian.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point.
As the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) was so courteous in giving way to me earlier, she enabled me to refer to a number of issues. All that I would say to her and to her colleagues is that we have common cause to make, which is to persuade Commissioner Milian that he is the villain of the piece.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Opposition are not surprised that the Government have tabled this motion, although it was done without much notice. They have shown constant disregard for the effects of their policies on areas that depend on coal and steel. Since they came to office in 1979, 220,000 jobs in the coal industry have been lost, as well as thousands of jobs in the steel industry. They have all been assisted by redundancy payments from ECSC funds.
It is also not surprising that the Government stubbornly refuse to pass on the full £100 million of RECHAR aid to coalfield communities. Earlier this year I went to the Department of the Environment with a delegation from the Coalfield Communities Campaign. We were told plainly by a Tory Minister that the Government agreed with the arguments made by us and by Bruce Millan, but that it was the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry who were stopping it being passed on. That shows the division in Whitehall regarding this money. The £100 million has not been paid out. Other member states who are eligible have met the rules that these people think are offensive. If we do not meet those rules pretty quick, I have no doubt that that £100 million designated for this country, to provide assistance in areas where it is very much needed, will end up in France, Spain and other member states that are meeting the rules laid down by the Commission. Those who sit on the Treasury Bench are not telling the truth if they say that that money has been stopped by the Commission.
Many points have been made about this issue. Even the European Parliament found time to debate a resolution asking the United Kingdom Government to adhere to the additionality rules of the European Community to which they were a party in the first place. Once again we are out of step with the 11 other member states, yet Ministers


argue that the 11 others are out of step with this Government. It is about time that they put their house in order so that we can get assistance for the regions.
The context of the debate is the future of the ECSC treaty. The amendment tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends puts our case. We believe that the treaty should run its course through to 2002. We also believe that the levy that provides the funds for loans and interest rate subsidies should remain in place. With the Government's dismantling of any real semblance of regional policy, the only place to turn to has been the EC. With their record on regional aid and RECHAR, it is no wonder that the Government would like to see the levy abolished.
We agree with the Commission that these provisions would be useful as social flanking measures, but the Government apparently believe that this is far too much an interventionist approach. Such an ideological debate does not look well when it is compared with the common agricultural policy, which I assume Conservative Members support. I do not expect that the Minister disagrees that the farmers in Gainsborough and neighbouring areas should get assistance from the CAP. If it is good enough for farmers to be paid on occasion for doing nothing. it is also good enough for ex-miners and ex-steel workers. They should get assistance when their industries are being run down.
The guidelines on production and capacity that can be issued under the provisions of the ECSC treaty are rarely used. When they are used, as they were in the early 1980s, it is to get rid of the "manifest crisis" in the coal and steel industries. From what we have heard during the past seven days about the Government's plans for the British coal industry, once again there is going to be a "manifest crisis" in the not-too-distant future—a Government-sponsored crisis, since they are bent on privatising the British coal industry. However, they say little about privatisation. In fact, the "p" word is not to be used about the national health service.
We see a need for the ECSC treaty to be used in the future. When the treaty finally runs out in the year 2002, other industries that are not covered by such help and protection may he needed. That is what the Commission is saying. It does not agree with the ideological claptrap that we have heard from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government. A lot more sense is coming from the Commission than from Whitehall.
We shall press our amendment to a Division because we feel that it is in the national interest to do so.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, including the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and for Stafford (M r. Cash). They have all debated the RECHAR money. I explained my position clearly and fairly. The Government believe that these moneys are genuinely additional. We regret that Commissioner Millan is choosing to withhold them. If coal mining communities are being denied the moneys, it is the fault not of the Government but of Commissioner Millan. The Government are interpreting the rules correctly. I regret

that Opposition Members have not taken this opportunity to remind Commissioner Millan of his duty to coal mining areas.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Leigh: No. I gave way 10 or 12 times in my opening speech.
I was surprised by the comment of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I think that I heard him correctly when he said that is was possible, and perhaps desirable, that Commissioner Millan should decide not to give the funds to this country but should divert them to other European countries.

Mr. Barron: I did not say that.

Mr. Leigh: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because it is important to set the record straight. That was my understanding and that of some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Barron: I did not say that that was desirable. I said that it was likely to happen, given that the Government, unlike other member states who are eligible for the money, will not take notice of the rules. In those circumstances, it is likely that we could lose the money. Ministers have told me that they disagree with what has been said tonight. When will the Government put their house in order, as have other member states, and get this much needed help to areas that have had a massive rundown in basic industries?

Mr. Leigh: If the money is to go to those areas, the decision lies with Commissioner Millan. We are interpreting the rules correctly. We pay £1,800 million into the structural funds and receive £900 million back—£600 million via the Fontainebleau agreement—hence it costs us £300 million per annum. That is our money. We pay it in. The Government will decide how the funds are disbursed.
The treaty is outmoded and out of date. I asked the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) whether she would explain the Labour party's position. Under the treaty, the Commission can levy a discriminatory tax on the coal and steel industries. It is significant and interesting that the hon. Lady would give no indication of the Labour party's view on the levy. It is a discriminatory levy.
This is the first industry debate after the party conferences. We heard much about the Labour party's new industrial policy. It seems that the Labour party is still wedded to the past. It alone is committed to retaining the treaty, which places a discriminatory levy on the industry.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Leigh: No. I do not have time.
The treaty results in rules and regulations being made which govern investment in the industry. The Labour party has built its socialist rock and will not be moved from it. It will stay in opposition because it alone wants to keep the treaty as it is. It wants to live in the past. We want to take the coal and steel industries into the future. We have put massive investment into the coal industry. The steel industry is now profitable. Under the Labour party it lost £1 billion. We are producing twice as much steel with half as many men employed. We can be proud of the coal and steel industries.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business), to put the Questions necessary to dispose of them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 189.

Division No. 228]
[12.4 am


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barron, Kevin
Loyden, Eddie


Battle, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McMaster, Gordon


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Boyes, Roland
McWilliam, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Caborn, Richard
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Can, Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Clelland, David
O'Brien, William


Cox, Tom
O'Neill, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dalyell, Tam
Redmond, Martin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Reid, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Rogers, Allan


Dobson, Frank
Salmond, Alex


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alexander
Snape, Peter


Foster, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wareing, Robert N.


Graham, Thomas
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hain, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hood, Jimmy
Wray, Jimmy


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)



Johnston, Sir Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Leadbitter, Ted





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amos, Alan
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fallon, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Favell, Tony


Butler, Chris
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Cash, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Franks, Cecil


Chapman, Sydney
Freeman, Roger





French, Douglas
Norris, Steve


Gale, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Patnick, Irvine


Gorst, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gregory, Conal
Powell, William (Corby)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Price, Sir David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hague, William
Rathbone, Tim


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Redwood, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hannam, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Rowe, Andrew


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Harris, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Haselhurst, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shelton, Sir William


Hind, Kenneth
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Speller, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Squire, Robin


Irvine, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jack, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Janman, Tim
Stern, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Stevens, Lewis


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Summerson, Hugo


Knapman, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Latham, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tracey, Richard


Lightbown, David
Trippier, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Lord, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Waller, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Ward, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Watts, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wilshire, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mills, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Miscampbell, Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy


Monro, Sir Hector
Yeo, Tim


Morrison, Sir Charles
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moss, Malcolm



Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tellers for the Noes:


Neubert, Sir Michael
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5577/91 relating to the future of the European Coal and Steel Community; supports the Government's view that early termination is to be preferred; but considers that, in the event that the Treaty is not terminated early, the flexibility contained within the Treaty should be used to bring about a less interventionist application of its provisions and to reduce burdens on business.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Yorkshire Dales National Park

Mr. William Hague: I have the honour to present a humble petition on behalf of more than 1,700 residents of the Yorkshire Dales national park, most of whom are my constituents. Their petition expresses a vote of no confidence in the administration of the national park and especially objects to planning restrictions and policies, the lack of elected representation and accountability, the inadequate provision of housing for local people and the failure to provide proper facilities for visitors, and stresses the importance of conservation area protection for villages.
The petition continues:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable house do urge … the Minister for the Environment: and Countryside to investigate and review the powers and policies of the National Park and their effect on local residents.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.—

To lie upon the Table.

Local Government (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood].

Mr. Tony Banks: A number of images abide from last week's rather lacklustre Tory party conference. First, there was the Prime Minister's speech of breathtaking banality, which was obviously part of his own personal campaign to whip up apathy around the country. I must confess to a certain degree of liking for the Prime Minister, but I believe that he should not bash on about the passage from Coldharbour lane to Downing street. I lived in Brixton for a lot longer than the Prime Minister did and I can tell him that, where I lived, we used to dream of living in Coldharbour lane because that was where all the toffs hung out. I hope that he will come off that one in the future.
The other thing that I remember from the Conservative party conference was the Secretary of State for Employment, who does his very best—and succeeds—in making Dr. Goebbels seem like an honest statistician. Lastly, there was the chairman of the Conservative party who, I know, likes to be thought of as a nice guy. If the chairman of the Conservative party is a nice guy, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—pardon me —is, in my opinion, a racing certainty for next year's Nobel peace prize.
The chairman of the party said something on to which a lot of us in London hooked straight away. He said that the Tories were looking for ways in which to give London a new voice. I hope that that is true. If a promise appears in the Conservative party election manifesto, I hope that it will have first an abject apology to the people of London for what the Tories have done to the capital city over the past 12 years and especially since the abolition of the Greater London council.
The abolition in 1986 of London's strategic voice, the GLC, was an act of authoritarian arrogance by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It was she who decided that the GLC—which was, after all, created by a Conservative Government and which was described by her when the Tories won the GLC election in 1977 as the "jewel in the crown"—was to be done away with. The right hon. Lady's act of abolition was a triumph of party-political vindictiveness over both good sense and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Londoners.
As the last chairman of the GLC, I derived great pleasure from witnessing the personal humiliation of the right hon. Member for Finchley at the hands of her own party. I remember how much she humiliated the GLC and, more importantly, all those who worked for it. What happened to her was almost just reward.
The story does not end there. With the announcement by the chairman of the Conservative party that even it is ready to restore a voice for London, the circle is almost complete. It has been a disastrous journey for London, which is now the only capital city in the world that does not enjoy the benefits of city-wide local government. London is acknowledged by all those who know and care about it to be unplanned, unco-ordinated and an increasingly unpleasant place in which to live.
London's transport system used to be the envy of the world, and now it is the laughing stock of Europe. The farce of the fast link from the channel tunnel to London


emphasises that. London's roads are a pot-holed patchwork of dirt and danger. Beggars are common place on the streets, the homeless are counted in their tens of thousands, and crime has reached heights not previously experienced this century. What an indictment of a Government whose party chairman is talking shamelessly about restoring a voice for London.
For me, two buildings in the capital encapsulate the waste, futility and shoddiness of Thatcherism in London. First, there is the derelict shell of Battersea power station. It was once a testament to British industrial power and confidence. It is now a shreaking monument of 12 years of shyster government. Secondly, there is the now rat-infested county hall, which was built with the money of London ratepayers to be the headquarters for London's local government. It is now in the hands of the London Residuary Body, a bunch of Tory goons whose dying wish is to turn an elegant building on the south bank into a vulgar hotel. It is fortunate that time is no longer on its side. The London Residuary Body is now as politically dead in the water as the Tory Government that gave its members their miserable little jobs initially.
The Labour party has set out clearly its proposals for London after the general election in a document entitled "London: a world-class capital". Labour intends to introduce a directly elected strategic authority to be called the Greater London authority. It will be a genuinely strategic authority. It will be responsible for transport, the emergency services and the police. The responsibility for the police is something that the police welcome in London. The authority will be responsible also for waste disposal, parks and recreation, land use planning and other city-wide services.
The authority will be based at county hall, or perhaps the Guildhall—who knows. It will certainly take pride of place in the capital city. It will be the true voice of London, and a voice of which we have been deprived for the past five years.
Labour's plans are well documented and available and I do not intend to spend any more time talking about them. Anyone who is interested can purchase the document. Indeed, I shall lend it to Conservative Members so that they can read and inwardly digest. The Liberal Democrats have also produced a series of well-honed proposals for London.
The Government's proposals for London are no more at present than the few casual remarks of the Conservative party chairman. I gather from reading tonight's edition of the Evening Standard that the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) takes strong exception, if the newspaper is to be believed, to the comments that have been made by the chairman of his party. We want to know what is meant by "a voice for London" in the Tory's book. Does the term mean a Minister for London? I should not think so because that would be impracticable, not least because the idea came from Lady Porter. Will there be an elected strategic authority of the sort that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have proposed? I doubt that because it would be rather like dancing on the grave of Thatcherism. I accept that there are some Conservative Members who would be happy to perform that function, but I see none of them in their places this evening.
Will there be a body rather like the London Docklands development corporation, writ large?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Heaven forbid.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend may well say that. However, I suspect that that is probably the option that a Tory Government would choose. The development corporation would comprise hand-picked Tory business men accountable only to the Secretary of State. The CBI has already discussed that and it probably appeals to Conservative Members and all those who have a profound contempt for public accountability through the ballot box.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Conservative party chairman—or whoever it is who is doing the thinking about this in the Tory party—was talking about a directly-elected mayor for London. That proposal has been advocated by the Secretary of State for the Environment and I share common ground with him in that respect because I presented a Bill to the House in May 1990 which, among other things, offered a similar proposal. That proposal is worthy of consideration, although I acknowledge the inherent dangers and the radical break with past and existing local government structures that such an office represents.
A number of mayoral models should be examined. I prefer the strong executive mayor directly elected by a clear majority of Londoners, which would obviously involve a ballot, presiding over a small strategic authority of no more than 20 members. If we are talking about strategic authority, we should consider a very small strategic authority considering not individual constituencies, but London in the round.
The mayor that I am thinking of would appoint the directors of the various policy areas and would propose the annual budget for the authority's approval. The mayor would have a veto power over council decisions subject to a council override, probably by an extraordinary majority.
There should be a term limitation on such an office. One can think of certain American cities where Tammany hall politics have come into play, for example with mayor Daly in Chicago. That kind of machine control over our cities is clearly unacceptable. A term limitation of two periods of office might be appropriate.
Given our party system, it is clear that a mayor of London or any other city—if he or she were to be directly elected—would come from the parties. Each party would nominate its candidate and that would be the basis upon which the election would take place. If the process were ever to come about, it would be up to the parties to choose their candidates. The Labour party could select its candidate on a one-person, one-vote basis among all party members in London. That would ensure that there was, in effect, a primary election and that the choice found favour with all our party members in the capital. Those are details and I could elaborate further. However, I am trying to outline a proposal tonight rather than to cross all the Ts and dot all the Is.
There are advantages in having a powerful executive directly-elected mayor for London. That would present a highly visible political figure who would greatly enhance the principles of accountability in local government, something that we all go on about in this House from time to time.
The mayor would have to answer for service delivery. In local government it is not easy to get someone to answer


for that delivery because of the diffuse nature of local councils. They are insufficiently responsive in terms of service delivery, and that applies to all councils whatever their political control.
The mayor would be a very clear and powerful voice for London and that is vital given London's unique position as the nation's capital. Because London is the seat of government, we all too often lose out in the capital, particularly in terms of creating a sense of identity and civic pride.
Whenever one puts forward such a proposal one is asked "What will it cost?" The answer is that it will cost a lot less than London is already paying for its various services. The Government have been saying, "Now that the GLC has gone, we are saving large amounts of money." I should like the Government to show me where that money has been saved. All the functions are being carried out, but they are being carried out among a myriad collection of Government Departments, borough councils, indirectly elected bodies, and quangos. Of course London poll tax payers are still having to pay the levies. They have to pay for the police, the fire and civil defence authorities, the waste disposal authority, and the ambulance service. Those services are organised inefficiently. The cost would undoubtedly be less. I am happy to have such a proposal costed if the Government would ever be honest enough to cost the true cost of GLC abolition.
Two thirds of Londoners recently expressed a wish for a city-wide strategic authority. That is an interesting statistic because it is precisely the same percentage of those who voted and expressed their opposition to the abolition of the Greater London council in 1986. Londoners have been remarkably consistent, even if the Government have not. Londoners are quite clear on what needs to be done in the capital city.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I find the figure of two thirds quite remarkable. If one asked anybody in the street whether there should be a voice for London, the immediate reaction would he yes. Since the GLC has been abolished I have received no correspondence from ordinary voters saying that they want a London-wide authority. Its replacement is not something which comes from their own initiative, but it is a prompted question which, perhaps inevitably by its form, would get the answer yes.

Mr. Banks: I did not pluck the figure out of the air, like the Government plucked the figure for the so-called savings following the abolition of the GLC out of the air. The opinion polls were conducted by MORI and NOP. I am prepared, on this occasion, to believe them. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has not received any letters. I did not receive many letters from my constituents on, for example, the Gulf—at least not to start with. I did after I voted in the House, but that was a different issue. However, I cannot say that my constituents were not interested—of course they were interested. That they do not write to hon. Members does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest, but the opinion polls clearly show that Londoners want a strategic voice for London. The hon. Gentleman deceives himself if he thinks that that is not a perceived need on the part of the majority of Londoners, of whom he does not happen to be one.
As I have said, Londoners are clear on what needs to be done. The Labour party is clear on what needs to be done.
The Liberal Democrats are clear on what needs to be done in London. The confusion and division in the matter are entirely confined to the Tory party. We want some answers from the Tories about how they see the future of local government structure in London. The chairman of the Tory party cannot say something and then walk away from it, and nor can Ministers walk away from it. The Tory newspapers would not allow a Labour shadow Minister to put forward a proposal for a new voice for London and then not pursue him—they would, and they would want to ask, "What do you mean?" Londoners deserve to be told by the Minister precisely what he believes the chairman of his party meant when he said that the Tories would consider restoring a voice for London. It is an important undertaking. It is one upon which Londoners deserve some answers. I hope that the Minister will start to give answers tonight in response to my points.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on his success in obtaining, so soon after our return from the summer recess, this opportunity to debate a subject that has generated so much heat and so little light. I also seize the chance of expressing my admiration for his position at the top of a recently published list of so-called most impressive Back-Bench Members. I regret that his wit seemed to desert him this evening.

Mr. Tony Banks: My speech was not meant to be funny.

Mr. Yeo: I could see that it was not meant to be funny. It certainly did not succeed in being funny.
I should like to put the hon. Gentleman right about the Conservative party conference. That conference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) will confirm, was a most notable success story by any standards. Indeed, the progress of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from Coldharbour lane to Downing street is an inspiration for all Conservative Members. Of course, I would not expect someone such as the hon. Gentleman, whose progress has been from Brixton to Newham via county hall, to be so inspired. Indeed, I suppose that when he publishes his memoirs they will be a metropolitan version of "From Log Cabin to Log Cabin". However, I deplored the hon. Gentleman's attack on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). When it comes to the big lie, there is no doubt about who is the champion in the House: it is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), with his absurd parrot cry about the national health service.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will recall that the government of London was debated in the House on 5 June. Then, as now, the hon. Gentleman showed great interest in the possibility of a directly elected mayor for London. Indeed, his concern with the details of how that election might take place and his interest in the powers of the post suggested that he was not insincere when he indicated his willingness to be a candidate for the post of directly elected mayor for London should such a post ever be established in his lifetime. In that debate, I noticed that there was a possibility of some competition in such an election from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
The prospect of watching those two former giants of the London Labour scene contesting an election together is alluring. It would be a sort of cockfight between a pair of dinosaurs. One can imagine the scene as the hon. Member for Brent, East pledges himself to restore grants to organisations such as Babies Against the Bomb, and to match that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would no doubt outbid the hon. Gentleman with fresh promises of funds for the South-East London Women for Life on Earth.
It is clear from what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has said that his party's thinking for London goes no further than the failed solutions of the 1960s. While that is happening, however, this Government are making sure that London and Londoners prepare for a most exciting future in the 21st century. There is absolutely no confusion or division among Conservative Members about the Government's policy for London.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an alleged statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the chairman of the Conservative party, which was reported a week ago yesterday in the Evening Standard. My right hon. Friend made no such statement. The newspaper item was a misreporting of a conversation between him and the paper's political editor. At this stage, the Government have not formed any conclusions. We are continuing to consider how to address the question of the appropriate form of London's government.
The statement made to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the route for the London section of the channel tunnel rail link, taken in conjunction with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last Thurs-day——

Mr. Tony Banks: I could not intervene earlier because I wanted to find the cutting. The Minister referred to the Evening Standard but I was referring to the front page of The Times of 8 October, which was headlined:
Patten plans strategic authority—Tories aim to give London a new voice".
I was referring to that, not to the Evening Standard, and that headline does not look to me like an account of a casual conversation; it looks like a fairly specific point, and that is what I should like the Minister to address.

Mr. Yeo: We have all had experience of newspaper reports that are built on other newspaper reports. The remarks on which the article in The Times was based were first reported in the Evening Standard on the previous day and were based on a misreported conversation between my right hon. Friend and the political editor.
Taken in conjunction with the last week's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the appointment of consultants to prepare an appraisal of the east Thames corridor, the statement about the London section of the channel tunnel rail link creates an unprecedented opportunity for stimulus to that area of London. It is an area of opportunity for environmental improvement, as well as for development. I should have thought that, representing a constituency in that part of London, the hon. Gentleman would be enormously pleased about the huge potential benefits of those decisions.

Mr. Spearing: If the Minister looks in Hansard, he will see that I asked the Secretary of State for Transport a question on that very topic yesterday when he made his statement. Does he not realise that the question is, for whom shall such development be made? If he looks at today's edition of the Evening Standard, he will see from its centre financial pages that that newspaper thinks that most of the advantages would be to developers—to friends of the hon. Gentleman and the Government. If the hon. Gentleman judges this matter by what happened with the London Docklands development corporation, he will see that such a development will not help real east Londoners very much.

Mr. Yeo: I am surprised that, even at this early stage, the hon. Gentleman should be so keen to knock what is by any standards a unique and historic opportunity for his constituents to be at the very gateway to Europe. It is disappointing that his thinking is so rooted in negative attitudes that he cannot bring himself to open his eyes to the vision for the threshold of the 21st century for his constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies. Enormous benefits could accrue from the historic choices and decisions that we are now making.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West touched tangentially on the position on county hall. Of course, he will be aware that I cannot add anything to what was said in my Department's decision letter of 5 September, a copy of which was sent to him. The future, marketing and disposal of county hall is a matter for the London Residuary Body to take forward and I have every confidence that it will bring the matter to a successful conclusion. The receipts from the sale will be returned to London boroughs for the benefit of their residents and will supplement the sum, which has already exceeded £500 million, distributed by the London Residuary Body.
The abolition of the GLC removed an expensive and redundant tier of local government. I do not believe that anyone, apart from a scattered few who were directly interested, bemoans its passing. Its successors, largely the boroughs, directly or through joint arrangements, have effected such a smooth transfer that no one has really noticed the change, except perhaps the removal of those offensively inflated GLC precepts. Boroughs are now more directly accountable to their residents and they have benefited from capital receipts from the LRB.
I despair at the catalogue of myths and prejudices about the health of our capital which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends so frequently propound. He appears to have his eyes and ears firmly closed to the good things that are happening all around him. Underselling London undersells Britain. London attracts investment and visitors on a huge scale. It is the most visited city in the world.
The City of London remains one of the three truly international financial centres in the world. Almost 500 foreign banks consider it worthwhile to have branches or subsidiaries here. More than 150 stock exchange member firms are now controlled by foreign companies. The City has diversity and depth in its skills. It remains pre-eminent within Europe in all major international financial market activities—a fact recognised by the arrival of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The only response of the Labour party to this overwhelming evidence of success is to propose the abolition of the City of London.
In transport the Government have developed a comprehensive strategy. Over the next three years London Transport will be enabled to invest approaching £3 billion —an increase of 90 per cent. on the three years up to April 1991. We are opening up docklands and other areas of south-east London with the Jubilee line extension. Services on the City extension to the docklands light railway started in July. The east-west cross-rail will provide substantial relief to central London commuters. We have safeguarded the route of the Chelsea-Hackney underground line. In real terms, London Underground investment last year was more than two and a half times the level in the final year of control by the hon. Gentleman's beloved Greater London council.
Labour's so-called manifesto for London talks glibly of a transport policy for London which takes traffic off the streets. That really means bash the private motorist. One will get around only if one is travelling in the chauffeur-driven limousine allocated to the chairman of the GLC.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is undertaking a major programme of investment and research to maintain and improve London's transport. The extra layer of bureaucracy advocated by the Labour party would blur rather than clarify the lines of responsibility.
The strategic planning guidance with which my right hon. and learned Friend has replaced the Greater London development plan took 11 years to prepare and approve. It provides a lead where it is important to do so in the wider London interest, but it avoids unnecessary intervention. The guidance sets out a concept of London as a city where enterprise and local community lire can flourish, where prosperity and investment will continue to increase, where areas which had declined can find new roles, where movement will become easier and where the environment will be protected and improved.
I come, lastly, to the structure for the government of London which has been widely debated at conferences and in the media in recent months. It sometimes seems that every organisation in the capital has a suggestion to offer about providing London with a voice or a strategic planning body. I do not intend to rehearse the options, but it is absolutely clear that London does not require an extra layer of inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy. There has

indeed been a wide welcome for the Government's proposals to move towards unitary authorities elsewhere in the country.
I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's claim that the extra tier of government which his party proposes would cut the cost of running London. That flies in the face of all experience. If we look at the Labour party's record in areas of London where it has responsibility, we see the gloomy story of uncollected rents—£100 million from the worst nine Labour authorities alone. The borough of Newham has one of the worst records on keeping its properties vacant—7 per cent. were vacant in April last year.
The Government are now examining whether there are any gaps, perceived or real, in the management and provision of public services for London. We wholly reject Labour's proposed Greater London authority. Although its role is ill-defined, it certainly looks like a monster and would make the old GLC look positively cuddly and benign. The new authority would control the fire service, land use planning, tourism, culture, London Regional Transport and traffic movements. It would even be given powers over the police.
Law and order did not feature prominently in the speeches of shadow Cabinet members at Brighton a couple of weeks ago—a rather curious omission from a party whose policies are now almost exclusively driven by market research on what it hopes may turn out to be popular. In the absence of any steer from the Leader of the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it is useful to have some pointer in a Labour party document about the attitude which the party would adopt towards the police, if given the chance. When the GLC existed, it devoted ratepayers' resources to bodies such as the Campaign to Curb Police Powers and the Gay London Police Monitoring Group. Where the GLC trod, surely the GLA would follow.
Whatever we decide, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly will not create a son of GLC. That would be a complete disaster. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see whether there is any possibility of his dream to be the mayor of London ever being attainable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.